Originally Posted By barboy For a Bond film it is one steamy pile of cow droppings. I hope whoever wrote the story and directed the picture never works again in the film idustry.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Wow! Don't hold back barboy. Tell us what you REALLY thought! I haven't seen it yet, but intend to. Unlike most everyone else, I wasn't a big fan of Casino Royal and Daniel Craig's Bond. It was too 'gritty' for my tastes. I much prefer the formulaic style of the other films that was basically set by "Goldfinger" with non-stop action perfectly mixed with humor and witty dialog that those films were known for. Craig's Bond seems to lack that humor. Still, the stuntwork was amazing in Casino Royal and I was willing to overlook some of the more 'serious' overtones that the film had. I'd rather have the more 'escapist' type fare that the previous films were known for. I hope they can mix the 'new' Bond with the old style in the next film. From what I'm hearing and reading, Quantum of Solace is far too grim and serious compared to the previous films in the series. Bond's one-liners are essential to keep things from getting too serious.
Originally Posted By dshyates I like that they didn't mess it up with actually having a plot, and only a brief mention of the villian.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I actually HAVE seen it, which makes me a little better qualified to comment. I enjoyed it. It was classic Bond; lots of action and just enough plot to keep it going for 90 minutes. I think Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. Yes, including Sean Connery.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Your right, RoadTrip. I should reserve my opinion of Quantum of Solace until after I see it. Basically, I was giving my opinion of Casino Royal and Daniel Craig as Bond. I certainly didn't hate Casino Royal or Craig's performance, but, I would like to see his character lighten up, at least a little. I might find him a little more appealing. That said, I'm still looking forward to seeing Quantum of Solace. I'm just not getting my expectations up like I was when I saw Casino Royal. Perhaps going in with lower expectations on my part might help me to enjoy it more for its own merits. Next to Sean Connery, my favorite Bond was Pierce Brosnan. Cool, dashing, and downright dangerous! My kind of Bond!!!
Originally Posted By ecdc I thought this was fantastic. But you're better off going into it thinking it's the second-half of Casino Royale rather than a stand-alone film. Bond does seem to be in a lose-lose situation. People were incredibly bored with the latest iterations. There was simply no drama - Bond was too suave and too guaranteed to never get a scratch. They actually had a character named Christmas Jones played by the horrendous Denise Richards. So after some absolutely terrible movies, and one that involved an invisible car, they rebooted the Bond franchise with Casino Royale. It was grittier and far more realistic. And IMNSHO, much better. I think Quantum of Solace keeps this up. Bond is much more complex and has some depth. But now people complain that they aren't fun anymore. Well for me, they haven't really been fun since Sean Connery. Predictable plots and action sequences I can see in the latest Michael Bay fiasco don't strike me as fun. The new films are a new lease on Bond's life; he was quickly fading into irrelevancy.
Originally Posted By Clopin I saw Quantum of Solace over the weekend, and I really enjoyed it. I have only ever seen 2 Bond flicks and both of them starred Daniel Craig as Bond, but I think he does a good job with the character. The stunts he does are great! The action in Quantum of Solace was really good, and involved chase scenes with all sorts of modes of transportation: fast cars, fast boats, fast planes. Good stuff!
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I just want to know one thing: Does he appear in those square-cut swimming trunks like he did in the first movie?
Originally Posted By DAR I saw the film and really enjoyed it. I agree with ecdc that it's best to look at as an extension of Casino Royale.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I thought it was just as entertaining as any of them. I actually appreciated the fact it had a sense of realism .. without it being a borderline - Batman movie feel to it .. with bad guys that look like they came out of a cartoon! Plus I hate cliche lines .. like the Bond movie with Brosnan and Berry with the ice palace thing. Some pretty cheesy lines from him and her, got on my nerves. Since the entrance with Daniel Craig, they've stayed away from that. Later, I read some comments that the film was less romantic .. and Bond was more of a serial killer .. and I did agree with that. However, every "Bond" story (I feel) needs some differences. I can't stand a movie series that goes for all the same elements, all the time. Each film needs to strive for some differences.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Just got back from seeing it. Alas, no square-cut swimming trunks scenes. Craig: excellent. I never doubted he would make a good Bond after seeing many movies he did before he was known in the States. I thought the movie took a while to get going. It wasn't as good or as fun as "Casino Royale," but it really picked up in the last half. It certainly was darker than CR by far. The action sequences, like the two recent Batman movies, were framed in such a way that they were really difficult to follow or see, though. That bugged me. The plane sequence was awesome, especially the jump. Judi Dench, as always, was excellent. I like that M has more of a role in the new films. I did like having the gun barrel sequence at the end of the movie. That was pretty cool. Bad theme song, though. Ugh. It's only mildly better than Madonna's.
