Well I went to see Quantum Of Whatsit
- Thread starter Mr Pig
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Tetedelacourse
New Member
- Location
- Rosyth
cookiemonster said:
You pick one of the most memorable scenes in the franchise, and then fail to mention the major homage to it in Quantum of Solace!
I think Andyoxon has a point. I was expecting it to be rubbish and really liked it. I can see that if you were expecting it to be brilliant you might have been let down.
I do disagree about the plot though. Let's run by a few plots of yesteryear to put this in context. One from 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s respectively
1. a terror organisation funded by the Japanese govt builds a rocket that can travel into space and back undetected and collect rival nations space capsules. The aim of which is to start WW3. This is done from inside a volcano.
2. 007 is sent to stop a diabolically brilliant heroin magnate armed with a complex organization and a reliable psychic tarot card reader
3. An investigation of a horse-racing scam leads 007 to a mad industrialist who plans to create a worldwide microchip monopoly by destroying California's Silicon Valley.
4. James Bond heads to stop a media mogul's plan to induce war between China and the UK in order to obtain exclusive global media coverage.
I don't see that covertly planning to hijack a country's water supply for profiteering is any "weaker" than this little lot!
As for how Bond stops the baddies - well again look back at the other films. It's usually his charisma and intuition that put a spanner in the works, so to speak.
cookiemonster
Legendary Member
- Location
- Hong Kong
cookiemonster
Legendary Member
- Location
- Hong Kong
Tetedelacourse said:You pick one of the most memorable scenes in the franchise, and then fail to mention the major homage to it in Quantum of Solace!
Oh yeah.
The woman covered in oil.
I do remember the homage to it but just forgot to mention it in my post.
Andy in Sig
Vice President in Exile
- Location
- Sigmaringen, Germany
I've not seen it yet because I don't want to see a dubbed version but am obviously aware of the mixed reviews. From what I've read I was wondering if it would make more sense to regard it as the postscript to Casino Royale as opposed to a completely self contained Bond film?
Tetedelacourse
New Member
- Location
- Rosyth
yes it would Andy, although I'd say it's more of a sequel than a post-script. First ever Bond sequel, and, allegedly, first ever bond film where he doesn't utter his legendary line.
That's what I was told anyway, can't remember the film that well.
That's what I was told anyway, can't remember the film that well.
Andy in Sig
Vice President in Exile
- Location
- Sigmaringen, Germany
I've finally got to see it as it has just come out on DVD over here. My first impressions are:
a. It is very slick and well made.
b. The few bits where there are a bit of dialogue are excellent and prove to me that Mr Craig is without a doubt the best Bond yet and Judi Dench is just an utterly brilliant actress (as if that needed proving).
c. The flaws in the film i.e. not enough of b. are, I reckon, down to typical Hollywood stupidity. Casino Royale got a bit of flak because it had some acting and character development in it and it was too far removed from the fluff of the crap Roger Moore era, so they went the other way and put in too much action or rather got the proportion of action to drama wrong. I would bet that there is a "Director's Cut" version dying to be released where loads of dialogue-heavy scenes are reinserted. I wonder if the absence of them explains the brevity of the film.
All in all it is excellently made but IMO it should be a warning for the next Bond film: they need to swing about three quarters of the way back to Casino Royale to keep everybody happy but ideally for me it should go even beyond Casino Royale.
I've no doubt that nobody will agree with this brilliantly penetrating and insightful review.
a. It is very slick and well made.
b. The few bits where there are a bit of dialogue are excellent and prove to me that Mr Craig is without a doubt the best Bond yet and Judi Dench is just an utterly brilliant actress (as if that needed proving).
c. The flaws in the film i.e. not enough of b. are, I reckon, down to typical Hollywood stupidity. Casino Royale got a bit of flak because it had some acting and character development in it and it was too far removed from the fluff of the crap Roger Moore era, so they went the other way and put in too much action or rather got the proportion of action to drama wrong. I would bet that there is a "Director's Cut" version dying to be released where loads of dialogue-heavy scenes are reinserted. I wonder if the absence of them explains the brevity of the film.
All in all it is excellently made but IMO it should be a warning for the next Bond film: they need to swing about three quarters of the way back to Casino Royale to keep everybody happy but ideally for me it should go even beyond Casino Royale.
I've no doubt that nobody will agree with this brilliantly penetrating and insightful review.
well i agree with your appraisal but for me the film was a bitter dissapointment. The plot was non existant and the film just tumbled from one ridiculous ott action scene to another .
I read somewhere that it tried to be Bourne and I have to say it came nowhere near the Bourne movies . It would be like comparing an Oscar winning movie (Bourne) to a second rate B movie (Quantum )
The action scenes ,well that was the whole film really.... were just stupid. Most of the special effects were digital and with a lot of manic camera shots shaking with no continuity or fading it left my head spinning and feeling rather queasy. My sister's 10 year old could edit better than that.
Craig was great as usual but this film was all about showcasing ridiculous special digital effects .
I read somewhere that it tried to be Bourne and I have to say it came nowhere near the Bourne movies . It would be like comparing an Oscar winning movie (Bourne) to a second rate B movie (Quantum )
The action scenes ,well that was the whole film really.... were just stupid. Most of the special effects were digital and with a lot of manic camera shots shaking with no continuity or fading it left my head spinning and feeling rather queasy. My sister's 10 year old could edit better than that.
Craig was great as usual but this film was all about showcasing ridiculous special digital effects .
Casino Royal was crap, If I ever stumble accross a copy of the new film, I may watch it if I have nothing better to do, but I am afraid Casion Royal has thrown me off Bond. The Bourne films have done the action scenes....Bond cannot top them. What Bond needs is scenes with Roger Moore peeling off a fake third nipple saying "well I feel like a bit of a tit now".
Bond is also a family movie....something which was destroyed by the rope and chair scene in Casino Royal. In the new film, is there any more humour/less torture scenes?
Bond is also a family movie....something which was destroyed by the rope and chair scene in Casino Royal. In the new film, is there any more humour/less torture scenes?
Headgardener
Armchair Cyclist
Well I watched the film the other day and at the end thought what was all that about then? I didn't like the idea that the director thought my attention span should only be 10 seconds long at the most. I also got the impression that the director couldn't decide which angle to shoot the action from so covered it from several angles and then included them all at the same time
. IMO not the best 007 to grace the silver screen.
. IMO not the best 007 to grace the silver screen.
Andy in Sig
Vice President in Exile
- Location
- Sigmaringen, Germany
True, but you are right to blame it on the director and I suspect the lack of dialogue scenes is down to the producer. When the actors got a chance to act, they were excellent. I'd love to know what ended up on the cutting room floor.
Cathryn
Legendary Member
- Location
- Marlborough, Wiltshire
If what we saw was the good bit, I dread to think what went on the cutting room floor. Sorry Andy, I thought this was the worst Bond I'd ever seen....with the best 'Bond' in it. Which made it even more disappointing.
Daniel Craig, though. Woof.
Daniel Craig, though. Woof.
Piemaster
Guru
- Location
- UK City of Culture
montage said:
Still don't understand how the censors gave it a 12a certificate. Wasn't pleased that my son had seen the film (unknown to me) when it was released. Should have had a straight 12 ticket, or even a 15. I'd say the same should apply to 'The Dark Knight' too.
As for qos. Saw it on dvd last week, thin plot and not enough character development, bad guy just not evil enough or backed up with a henchman. He could be a hedge fund manager. Lack of action in CR over-compensated for. Bond films have to have a slow build up of the action scenes, build up the watchers anticipation of the big finale. Qos pitches action scenes too high at the start so that by the big finale it more 'Oh look, another explosion/fight scene'
