THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: Leonidas on 30 Jun 2008, 08:06
-
The movie picks up where Casino Royale left off.
Casino Royale was my favourite Bond movie since Goldeneye, and I am certainly looking forward to this latest film in the series.
Here's the trailer: http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/30/quantum-of-solace-teaser-trailer/
-
thanks for that!!! looks great, and november seems so far away agh.
-
Looks cool. Is the new Bond girl the actress from Hitman?
-
Man, it looks excellent.
-
Looks nice.
-
OHGEEZEAWESOME
I am excited...
-
FUCK YEAH!!!
Let's see if Craig can live up to my impression/expectations that he is the greatest Bond so far.
-
Renamed the thread because let's just keep it to one thread hey.
Anyways I guess Jack White and Alicia Keys (http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/07/reasonable_people_teaming_for.php) are doing the theme? I... I honestly don't know what to make of that. My brain just imagines Jack White singing "Goldfinger" and like it obviously doesn't work at all so I am approaching this not even from a good or bad angle but more of a "WTF?"
-
I expect Jack White will write something garage-y and Alica Keys will sing it with soul and, hopefully, in a sexier voice than what is considered normal for her.
-
I think I read that about Jack White and Alicia keys doing the song in Newsweek, I think, and I literally had to go back and re-read the sentence 4 times, because I was sure it was a misprint. Now I know it's not. And I am confounded. The rest of it looks like it's coming along so well! Why make the theme such a roll of the dice?
(On a side note: A lot of people seem to say that Goldeneye was the only good Brosnan movie, but I always thought Tomorrow Never Dies was pretty damn good. It was a refreshing change of villain, and it was interesting to focus on China rather than Russia for the first time.)
-
Am I the only person who thinks this looks nothing like a bond film? I saw the trailer at the start of Hancock, and Daniel Craig showed up and I thought, "hey maybe a new bond film," I watched for about 20 more seconds and by that time thought, "no can't be a bond film, looks nothing like one" then Judie Dench appeared forcing me to the conclusion that it was a bond film. Then came the title, and wtf, that is not a 007 title.
Not saying it won't be good, just that it doesn't look anything like a the rest of the franchise.
Also it appears that Craig's bond has an affinity for getting his face turned into a pound of mince meat.
-
Quantum of Solace is a 007 title.
It's a short story written by Ian Fleming that hardly features Bond, but it is a title from Ian Fleming himself and does have Bond.
-
I expect Jack White will write something garage-y and Alica Keys will sing it with soul and, hopefully, in a sexier voice than what is considered normal for her.
Nope, 'tis officially a duet (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/jul/31/jamesbond.aliciakeys)
-
I'm pretty excited about the theme song. I don't care for Alicia Keys, but I feel like Jack White is strange and awesome enough to make it work.
-
Am I the only person who thinks this looks nothing like a bond film?
Well all I'll say is when I first saw the trailer, and still watch it now, it still gives me the shivers. Maybe it's the theme tune but it sure looks like a Bond movie to me.
And personally I think that any moves away from the latter Brosnan movies is a good thing. They were fun but they were getting silly, and with all the daft gadgets (an invisible car) it was turning into some sort of Spy Kids for adults....
-
Am I the only person who thinks this looks nothing like a bond film? I saw the trailer at the start of Hancock, and Daniel Craig showed up and I thought, "hey maybe a new bond film," I watched for about 20 more seconds and by that time thought, "no can't be a bond film, looks nothing like one" then Judie Dench appeared forcing me to the conclusion that it was a bond film. Then came the title, and wtf, that is not a 007 title.
Not saying it won't be good, just that it doesn't look anything like a the rest of the franchise.
Also it appears that Craig's bond has an affinity for getting his face turned into a pound of mince meat.
Yes, you are the only person who thought that. Apparantly, you are also the only person to actually never have picked up an Ian Fleming novel. Casino Royale, to me at least, was much closer to the source material than all the other bond flicks.
-
^^^hit the nail on the head and that is why Casino Royale is my favourite.
-
as a matter of fact I have read the novels, and they were pretty shit. all they were was the adventures of Ian Fleming's Mary Sue Self Insert Penis Extension, and they took themselves far too seriously, but the films weren't afraid to laugh at themselves.
And having re-watched the full trailer, yes it does look somewhat like a bond film, the only reason I thought it didn't was that what I remembered of it seemed to concentrate far more on the dialogue and the story than the usual bond trifecta of girls, fast cars and action.
though as much as this looks like a good film I wish they would bring back Q. And I still stick by the fact that Quantum of Solace sounds like a bad sci fi, not a bond film, even if it was the title of one of the books.
-
At this point, I can understand missing the old Bond, but if that's the case, you have plenty of movies to soothe your nostalgia with. The Sean Connery era of Bond filmmaking wouldn't really fly today. And as the new movies promise to be good movies, we should just appreciate them as such.
-
though as much as this looks like a good film I wish they would bring back Q.
The reason why they haven't introduced him yet in this series (along with Moneypenny) is that there hasn't been an organic place in the story in which to fit him thus far.
-
bond looks badass again
the girl looks hot
i'm not thinking about the theme song, because anyone remember who they used for casino royale? yeah, they got some strange tastes in themsongs
-
I seriously doubt that Jack White will ever top this...
Quantum of Solace (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TMoJRLStD9c)
-
Oh my god that was fantastic.
-
That was quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen/heard on Youtube.
-
Casino Royale was my favourite Bond movie since Goldeneye, and I am certainly looking forward to this latest film in the series.
Sounds like you and I have identical taste in Bond films; Royale and Goldeneye are 1 and 2 on my list as well. I'm already counting the days until QoS comes out. I'm interested to see what kind of Bond movie Forster makes...
-
I can honestly say that I have never enjoyed any Bond except Daniel Craig. I wasn't alive when Sean Connery played Bond so I have no fond recollections of seeing him when the films were still "relevant." For me they were always boring and Connery just seemed like such a douchebag. George Lazenby doesn't really deserve a mention....his bond was horrible. Moore was....interesting, his Bond was horrible but his movies were great (Jaws anyone?) Dalton nearly killed Bond, thank god we was only in two films. As for Brosnan....I never liked him. Goldeneye was a good film, it was easily the best of the Bonds until Casino Royale. But Brosnan himself always seemed like such a disgusting manslut. Did no one else feel the sleaze oozing off of him in The World is Not Enough?
Quantum of Solace looks amazing. I love the new direction that the films are taking...it's more realistic and at least the one-liners are funny. As for Q....who could be the replacement actor?
-
John Cleese, he has been doing the video game voice of Q, and was the replacement Q in (I think) The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day.
-
Yeah...but they called him R and he was definitely terrible compared to Q. And I highly doubt they'd bring in John Cleese....I don't think they're going for "funny" anymore.
-
I thought he was called R too, but my friend (who has watched said film way more often than me) said that it was a joke, Q is the name of the position, Quartermaster, and John Cleese has been doing Q for the video games, as well as (according to wikipedia) Die Another Day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(James_Bond)#John_Cleese_as_Q_.281999_-_2002.29
Apparently, Q won't be in Quantum of Solace, don't remember if that has been stated already.
-
Casino Royale was great, and this looks like it will be great. I wish people wouldn't complain that mainstream movies are finally being made well (new Batman films, new Bond films, etc).
-
as a matter of fact I have read the novels, and they were pretty shit. all they were was the adventures of Ian Fleming's Mary Sue Self Insert Penis Extension, and they took themselves far too seriously, but the films weren't afraid to laugh at themselves.
I agree with this completely. Yes.
IMO, Bond IS Spy Kids for adults. The gadgets are cool, Q is cool, without either of these there's just no point. Without the gadgets it's just another action film. Daniel Craig lurched through Casino Royale like some kind of juiced-up football player. Quantum of Solace is a terrible title and I don't care if it is canon. Basically, when it comes to movie adaptations of books I don't care how faithful they are, I care if it makes a good movie, especially when you're adapting from such a shit writer as Fleming. (P.S. My favorite Bond is Roger Moore so obvs you can see where my lack of sophisticated taste comes from.)
-
Moore was....interesting, his Bond was horrible but his movies were great (Jaws anyone?) Dalton nearly killed Bond, thank god we was only in two films. As for Brosnan....I never liked him.
Moore's Bond movies were arguably the worst in all of the series. Live and Let Die had a great theme song, but apart from that, it was an awful, awful movie. Moonraker? View to a Kill? For Your Eyes Only? All horrendous. Dalton was a very very different Bond, but I thought he was excellent, particularly in License to Kill. He was deadly serious, and it was more than welcome after Moore's ridiculous self-parody of the character (I watched all the Bond films in the order they came out). Further, I'd contend that Brosnan is far and away the most suave, charismatic and overall Bond-ish of any of the other actors other than early Connery.
-
^^ I think Bronsan was the best Bond, followed closely by Connery, but Craig may overtake both of them if QOS is as good as it looks
-
i'm definitely looking forward to this movie but i think i might be more excited about the theme song than the actual movie.
i'm a whore for Jack White. i can't help it.
-
New Trailer (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809961074/video/9655524)
-
Holy damn it looks so good.
SO GOOD.
-
This may be the only Bond film I will pay to see.
-
Oh my god. Ohmygodohmygodohmygod.
Omigd.
-
i came
-
I've already forgotten about The Dark Knight.
-
Meh @ trailers
-
Here (http://www.imeem.com/people/Gnuk1-O/music/PFQVHzx8/alicia_keys_another_way_to_die_feat_jack_white/) is the new Bond song.
-
Yeah it sounds about as WTF as I figured it would.
-
Huh.
Well.
That was...
That was.
-
I kind of like it. The first bit is pretty weird, but I'm assuming it works with the visuals of the movie.
-
That certainly is a thing, isn't it?
-
Man I'm glad i don't judge a movie by its intro song, because this movie is gonna kick so much ass. I really wasn't sure about what I felt back when they announced Casino Royale, but I eventually caved to watch it with my dad and brother and it just blew me away, so I'm hoping this one will do the same.
-
Haven't gone through the forum properly so don't know if anyone else has posted a review, so will just throw in my two cents.
(Apologies in advance for how poorly written this is!)
This flick came out here (Ireland) and in the UK on October 31st, and I saw it on Sunday night, and came out of the cinema... disappointed.
Its a pretty enjoyable action film, yes, its better than something like Die Another Day, but it doesn't come any where near the heights that Casino Royale hit.
It feels like the dramatic scenes and the action scenes come from two completely different films, a real case of the director leaving the action sequences to the second unit director.
Where as in Casino Royale the action scenes had an emotional, and almost physical resonance (when some one got hit, you winced, it looked like it hurt) here there is no sense of that physicality its all just happening.
The opening chase scene is fantastic, one of the best I've seen in the last few years, but other action scenes border on boring, the dogfight (not a spoiler its in the trailer) is just pointless, I read somewhere that the director wanted to have an action scene set in each element, so there are fights on land, an aerial dogfight, a chase on water, and a fight scene in a burning building, so the dogfight just feels like its thrown in there so it can be checked off. The ending of the aerial sequence is frankly ridiculous, yes I know its a Bond film, but Casino Royale tried to ground the series in a somewhat realistic world.
I realise the above is largely negative, so feel I should point out that I did enjoy the film, but I won't be watching it again and again like I did with Casino Royale. Oh by the way, the film references events and characters from Casino Royale heavily, so I wouldn't recommend seeing it if you haven't seen Daniel Craig's first outing as Bond!
-
My biggest concern is that it looks like they're using a lot more CGI visual effects in this one than in Casino Royale. CR was a grittier, more realistically grounded spy film, as opposed to the effects-laden bullshit that the latter Pierce Brosnan bond films became. I'm worried they may be backsliding.
-
I'm just hoping it's like sophomore-slump equivalent for movies (I'm pretty much considering CR a reboot).
-
Just saw it, and I found it underwhelming. There weren't any of the stylish sequences like the ones at the beginning of CR, the plot was far too straightforward and felt more like a string of action sequences than anything (there's a pretty cool twist at the beginning, but it's followed by a lot of nothing), the characters were flat, and the villain in particular was completely insignificant. It didn't have the oomph of its predecessor. Far more than CR, it felt like a retread of Bourne, just with more exotic locales.
They need to get Martin Campbell back. Marc Forster is far too slick of a director for this stuff.
-
The ending was very anti-climactic. I was expecting something a lot more...
-
Saw it today, I don't know what people are talking about, I liked it. I mean, a couple of the fighting scenes definitely made my a little motion sick, but overall I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as Casino Royale, but I have no real complaints.
-
I completely agree with Boro,
I went to the movie expecting an action movie with James Bond in it and that is exactly what I got. Also, Olga Kurylenko is just amazingly hot. Hooray for Ukrainian girls.
-
Agreed, It's not as good as Casino Royale. It was a bit plot twisty which i did't expect from a bond film.
Also, Bond doesn't bone Olga, the main girl in the movie(I forgot her character name). Totally unexpected
-
yeah, but he boned Fields, and hot British redheads are just fine with me. Go Bond.
-
Spoiler:She got covered in oil, how awful.
-
What kind of oil? =DDD
It hasn't come out for us A'straiyuns, but I saw a picture of Bond wearing this dirty jumper-hoodie and everyone around me was like, "omgwtf he's channelling his Jason Bourne"...
Is it really that extreme? =P
-
It's not far off the mark. Casino Royale was great because it actually gave Bond emotions, and it had a realistic villain, more or less. QoS is a step backwards, more toward the old Super Killguy Bond that previous actors portrayed, and less like the more human Bond portrayed in CR. The villain in QoS is also realistic, but pretty boring - I can think of a lot of realistic psuedo-supervillain professions before I pick one as innocuous as the one they went with.
There's also virtually no character development (I didn't even know the names of the henchman Olga Kurylenko's character until I checked IMDb after I got home), and while Olga Kurylenko was hot in her role, I gotta say Gemma Arterton (the actress who played Strawberry Fields) stole the show in that arena. I do think it was kinda cool that Bond didn't get the Bond girl in this flick; Arterton doesn't count, both because Kurylenko was the one listed as a starring role (the designated Bond girl), and because Strawberry Fields is MI-6 :P
It's still a great movie, but go in expecting a Jason Bourne flick instead of a Casino Royale-esque Bond.
-
Man, I do not really get this Jason Bourne comparisons. I mean, yeah, they're both action films based around a male protagonist, and QoS certainly stole a couple of stylistic tricks from the Bourne films in the action sequences - but then, so did Casino Royale, and I'm pretty sure the Bourne films were hugely influenced by the old Bond movies anyway. Just having one hand-to-hand combat scene in a hotel room filmed with a shaky hand-held camera does not justify the comparisons, as far as I'm concerned. The mood for the non-action scenes was fairly classic Bond, really - dalliances with beautiful spies in plush hotel rooms, attending cocktail parties in a fancy tux, doing some spying at the opera. The list goes on.
It wasn't perfect - the plot hung together badly and poorly fleshed out in favour of jamming way too many locations in, the action sequences were occasionally a bit lacklustre, and the casting in places was a joke. Of course, these are all criticisms that good be levelled at many of the classic Bond films, but now that they've stripped away a lot of the old charm and light-heartedness of the old films, they really can't afford to get these things wrong.
-
Man, Bourne is quite unlike Bond. All they really have in common is a setting of covert action.
Bourne influenced the new Bond in several ways. The only time I remember Bond getting into actual hand-to-hand fights before CR was maybe a scene in Goldeneye. Before that it was mostly gunplay in tuxes, gadgets and maybe a poorly choreographed wrestling match. But the action sequences are beside the point, really. I'd chalk those up to prevailing action movie trends than actual specific aping.
What Bourne had that breathed life into the spy genre was a semblance of reality. Bond was all magical realism and wish fulfillment. Wouldn't it be cool if spies were actually dashing high-society douchebags with expensive toys, instead of the pencil-pushing bureaucrats and, to a lesser extent, military men that they actually are?
Bourne took the spy movie away from the glossy save-the-world-from-a-eurotrash-villain antics and brought it closer to what reality would look like were it a movie. Evil geniuses with death rays and alopecia intent on destroying the world? Silly. A highly trained wetworks agent on the run from a gov't with its hands dirty? Slightly less implausible, but it felt plausible in the post 9/11 world. It's pertinent to point out that the Bourne books are definitely influenced by Bond, but they're airport paperbacks and inferior in pretty much every way to the movie versions. Bourne was in a lot of ways an inversion of Bond. Bourne is a professional soldier who improvises under pressure. Bond is a suave, quippy jetsetter who always knows what to do. Bourne steals cars, uses public transport and hides out in slums. Bond drives a paid-for Aston Martin (which he casually trashes) and stays at beachfront resorts under his own name. Bourne opposes his handlers, shady bureaucrats who have committed simple crimes that actually are carried out by covert agencies in the name of national interest. Bond opposes rich villains with needlessly elaborate plans who are evil for ambiguous reasons.
When Casino Royale opened with grainy digital footage of Daniel Craig drowning a guy in a sink, it was meant to be a signal of a reboot in more ways than one, but more to the point it was playing at being Bourne. They couldn't keep that facade up forever, Bond has expectations to live up to, and with QoS you can see them attempt to have it both ways, having a dedicated professional soldier who also happens to be a high society douchebag, who drives Aston Martins but fights with his bare knuckles, who puts on impeccably tailored suits before dirtying them up real good, who chafes against his agency but always for the right reasons in the end, a cad who is also deeply romantic. Really it's just Bond, minus the gadgetry, with a new coat of paint. It's only going to take a few movies before it's as innocuous and tiring as it ever was.
-
I never found Bond movies to be "innocuous and tiring." You know what you're going to get going in to them. That's part of why they have such staying power and why they're so great. Even Die Another Day, one of the crappiest Bond movies, was better than most other action movies in existence. The only time the series had a big problem was near the end of Roger Moore's career.
-
Man, the last few Brosnan Bonds were pretty awful, even if they were effective action movies. From Russia With Love is a good movie movie, not just a good action movie. It's possible for these films to be good. There was a gradual decline in quality after Goldeneye and Casino Royale effectively hit the reset button for a lot of people, but the seams are starting to show for me. If they get a new director and a better villain next time (and I think that's the thing about QoS and the last Brosnans that sucked the most - boring villains) I'll come around, but I did not really find a lot to like in QoS.
-
Man, I definitely agree that QoS was really nothing special - I just don't think that writing it (and the entire reboot, as I've seen a lot of people do) off as too similar to Bourne. Maybe this last film did veer a little too much that way (although, like I said, I really don't think that was the problem with it - the weak villain was definitely one of it's biggest flaws, as well as a plot that felt like it had very little in the way of direction), but Casino Royale proved that this can work, and hopefully will again (this film actually left open the potential for some good villains and a potentially more focussed plot). I don't think it's impossible for them to have them tread a line that is somewhere between the old Bonds and Bourne - Casino Royale, again, did this pretty well, I thought. I just hope they manage to pull it back together for the next one.
-
Man, the last few Brosnan Bonds were pretty awful, even if they were effective action movies. From Russia With Love is a good movie movie, not just a good action movie. It's possible for these films to be good. There was a gradual decline in quality after Goldeneye and Casino Royale effectively hit the reset button for a lot of people, but the seams are starting to show for me. If they get a new director and a better villain next time (and I think that's the thing about QoS and the last Brosnans that sucked the most - boring villains) I'll come around, but I did not really find a lot to like in QoS.
I just strenuously disagree with the second part of that paragraph. Die another Die was shit, but Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is not Enough were pretty fucking brilliant. Further, Brosnan is my 3rd favorite Bond. He was the first actor to embody the entirety what Bond should be since Connery. Moore focused too much on the comedic aspect of the character, and Dalton too much on the violent side.