[mitty]

A View to a Kill is my favourite Bond film... just look at it. Grace Jones, Christopher Walken, the Duran Duran theme... what's not to like?

[LarryH]

James Bond and the PowerBook G5!

I'm so very, very sorry.

[squidwardsmum]

Hey OP who is the guy who tries to be funny but fails? You!

I dig the name

[NeoRicen]

New Trailer
Quantum Of Solace trailers and video clips on Yahoo! Movies

Looks amazing.

[ClockWork]

SPERMULA - and Big Mutha...

[Goodbye]

Anyone else feel it was a bit of a let down? Didn't think it was as good as Casino Royale.

[bennyling]

Originally Posted by Goodbye

Anyone else feel it was a bit of a let down? Didn't think it was as good as Casino Royale.

Nah - it was alright.

You probably thought it was a let down as you've already seen Daniel Craig as Bond before - so nothing new there. You already know his acting style, etc.

Could have been better, could have been worse.

[digoxin]

Watched it last night. Some parts of it was ok and I thought Daniel Craig is quite good as darker and more flawed Bond. I didn't think the chemistry was quite there between Bond and the main girl. Actions part in the opening scene was good but the storyline was just awful. I miss the humour that was in the previous ones and Mr Q(gadget guy) is missing. I really miss the gadget part of things. Much more darker and raw. 5.5/10.

[andrew.wilson]

As a huge Bond fan (who owns every movie etc.) I was VERY disappointed.

It wasn't a Bond film, it was some bullshit storyline more complicated than Lost with some half arsed arty farty action sequences thrown in. I can not remember one thing that stood out for me...the boredom from the 'new' style of storyline perhaps.

The continuity was shocking (Felix Leiter was black?!, M was Judie Dench, then a dude, then Judie Dench again!?)

It has no Q, no real gadgets used by bond and absolutely no humour or charm.

The villain was pathetic as was his poorly explained evil plan (which is based on a true story funnily enough)

Piss this director off I say and this format of movie....

For the record I loved Casino Royale and think Daniel Craig is a great actor (especially in Casino Royale and Layer Cake) but he didn't have much to work with here...

[Kuma]

Originally Posted by andrew.wilson

As a huge Bond fan (who owns every movie etc.) I was VERY disappointed.

It wasn't a Bond film, it was some bullshit storyline more complicated than Lost with some half arsed arty farty action sequences thrown in. I can not remember one thing that stood out for me...the boredom from the 'new' style of storyline perhaps.

some people said it should have been called "The Bond Identity"

could this be the first Bond cinematic experience I don't have?
Your review is pretty scathing.... especially for another huge (like you) Bond fan.

[Goodbye]

Originally Posted by andrew.wilson

M was Judie Dench, then a dude, then Judie Dench again!?)

The guy was the Minister, not M.

[dolbinau]

I think the movie was alright, I agree that it seems less like a Bond film and more like a generic action movie. And the Bourne style shots at the beginning were torture (well all throughout the movie really). Thank god for Judi Dench!

[AlexR]

Originally Posted by mitty

Quantum of Solace... worst film title ever?

The title wasn't the only problem with this movie

[andrew.wilson]

Originally Posted by Goodbye

The guy was the Minister, not M.

I meant in the series as a whole; M (James Bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are supposedly set before all the other films, where in every one sans Pierce Brosnan era M has been a guy.

Kuma; I know I gave it a seething review, and it is probably unfair because it was a half decent generic action movie, but it wasn't a BOND movie which is what disappointed me... I can't stand the Bourne series and those criticism are right, that's exactly what this movie was like...

[NeoRicen]

Originally Posted by andrew.wilson

The continuity was shocking (Felix Leiter was black?!, M was Judie Dench, then a dude, then Judie Dench again!?)

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Casino Royale was a complete reboot, not a prequel. Casino Royale onwards have no connections at all to the first 20 movies, also Leiter was black in Casino Royale as well so I don't know why you're shocked now.

It wasn't a Bond film, it was some bullshit storyline more complicated than Lost with some half arsed arty farty action sequences thrown in. I can not remember one thing that stood out for me...the boredom from the 'new' style of storyline perhaps.

The story really wasn't that complicated.

Spoilers

[*]Dominic Greene and his organisation are staging coups in South America in exchange for land deals with the new leaders as a way to control as much water as possible, the organisation also gets the US and UK to stay out of it by promising Oil. Bond tries to stop him and uncover the organisation. Simple.


/Spoilers

The problem wasn't that the story was complex (it was simpler than Casino Royale), just that it was poorly told because the movie moved to fast.

[andrew.wilson]

Originally Posted by NeoRicen

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Casino Royale was a complete reboot, not a prequel. Casino Royale onwards have no connections at all to the first 20 movies, also Leiter was black in Casino Royale as well so I don't know why you're shocked now.


The story really wasn't that complicated.

Spoilers

[*]Dominic Greene and his organisation are staging coups in South America in exchange for land deals with the new leaders as a way to control as much water as possible, the organisation also gets the US and UK to stay out of it by promising Oil. Bond tries to stop him and uncover the organisation. Simple.


/Spoilers

The problem wasn't that the story was complex (it was simpler than Casino Royale), just that it was poorly told because the movie moved to fast.

I've been told it was a reboot, but how can you ethically reboot a series that has been running for so long! It's stupid!

I know the story wasn't that complicated, I didn't really mean it that way, like you said, it was just really hard to follow...normally Bond movies are characterised by a dead simple to follow story and emphasis on the girls, gadgets, humour, charm and action...this movie was let's ditch all those things for 'sophisticated' (read: hard to follow) story telling. That is fine for other movies, but it doesn't fit what the bond genre has been for the last 25 years.

I wonder how long they will keep up this 'rebooted' trend? Hopefully not at all. Honestly, they should have made a spin off or something, because that is what it looks like it is shaping up to be - spin off action movie series with the 007 name and the almost guaranteed success that goes along with that brand...

[fulltimecasual]

the film was terrible, but for me not because i'm a huge bond fan, just cos it was sloppy film making..

[iTy]

Is this a betterer title?

[ryano]

Originally Posted by andrew.wilson

I've been told it was a reboot, but how can you ethically reboot a series that has been running for so long! It's stupid!

I know the story wasn't that complicated, I didn't really mean it that way, like you said, it was just really hard to follow...normally Bond movies are characterised by a dead simple to follow story and emphasis on the girls, gadgets, humour, charm and action...this movie was let's ditch all those things for 'sophisticated' (read: hard to follow) story telling. That is fine for other movies, but it doesn't fit what the bond genre has been for the last 25 years.

I wonder how long they will keep up this 'rebooted' trend? Hopefully not at all. Honestly, they should have made a spin off or something, because that is what it looks like it is shaping up to be - spin off action movie series with the 007 name and the almost guaranteed success that goes along with that brand...

I think it needed a drastic reboot after Die Another Day. That was the biggest steaming pile of crap i've ever seen.

I liked it, I liked Casino Royale more, but I prefer the 'rebooted' - more realistic Bond over the Pierce Brosnan fires rockets from his converted beamer while driving around a car park Bond.

[Lutze]

Originally Posted by Kuma

some people said it should have been called "The Bond Identity"

could this be the first Bond cinematic experience I don't have?
Your review is pretty scathing.... especially for another huge (like you) Bond fan.

I think that people are reading way too much into the movie. Leave your brain at the door, enjoy the lack of gadgets and see Bond as a rougher, nastier and harder version of Bourne. Incidentally the Bourne story (books) and the Bourne films really hit the action spot for me.

I don't care that they have M issues - I don't care about Felix being different. Enjoy the film as the entertainment it's meant to be.

I was gifted tickets to see the film for free due to a supplier putting it on for the IT department, though it was partly a curse because the audio was only stereo not DTS / Digital. However I'll go and pay to watch it again tomorrow somewhere I know the audio will be good.