8mm Forum: Quantum of Solace

This is topic Quantum of Solace in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001243

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 26, 2009, 06:12 PM:

Well the latest Bond film, Quantum of Solace, hit the shelves this week, and I eagerly rented it from Blockbuster. What a huge disappointment! This is not the worst Bond film ever, it is the worst film ever! No intelligible plot, ridiculous action scenes with cuts every second (I'm not kidding!), no sexy Bond girls, absolutely awful music, hand held shaky camerawork, and a totally unlikeable portrayal of James Bond. A total waste of time, talent, and money.
Save your own money and avoid this film like the plague.
I swear, I can't stand too much more of these modern films [Mad]

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 26, 2009, 06:48 PM:

I agree Paul, very dissapointing, the worst bond ever by a country mile, sadly.
I did however enjoy Craigs first Bond outing quite a bit, it had something this one completely lacks.

Have to say on rewatching Q of S it does improve slightly on second viewing.

Best Mark.

PS its worth mentioning the theme tune is so poor and so not Bond as well. Dreadful.

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on March 26, 2009, 07:16 PM:

I screened it.
the attendane was very poor and the film did not have a long run at the cinemas compaired to Casino Royale.
Looks like the person who filmed it has been watching to much of those sat morning cartoons with lots of cuts and stupid camera angles.
ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE now there is a good Bond film! [Big Grin]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 26, 2009, 07:33 PM:

From what I have read about the film, this one takes place right after the end of "Casino Royale" and is joined to that other film.

I suppose, if you were to watch the two of them together, it may be a much more enjoyable experience.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 26, 2009, 08:03 PM:

Sadly, probably not !!!!

Best Mark.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on March 26, 2009, 11:27 PM:

I stayed away from that one based on others' negative comments, so I'm not surprised.

Just had a chance to see the Dark Knight for the first time, in Blu-Ray. Technically amazing in every way, and the way it was shot adds to the faux realism of the whole thing. No stupid handheld jittery cameras, to be sure. Made a whole lot more money than Quantum. Hollywood upstarts, please take note.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 27, 2009, 04:44 AM:

Interestingly I very much enjoyed it. It has its bad points such as the unintelligible opening with cuts every few frames (I just gave up and looked away!) but overall I still liked it. Possibly because Daniel Craig is so good in the role of Bond.

In general I'm not a big fan of 'Bond' films but do like them nevertheless. I couldn't stand some of the latter Connery titles and many of the Roger Moore ones but thought 'The Living Daylights' gave the series a lease of life. 'Casino Royale' was the best of all though.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on March 27, 2009, 07:38 AM:

I went to the theater to see Quantum...prepared to hate it, but actually enjoyed the film a great deal...except for that first chase sequence in which the cutting was so quick that no one could tell what was going on. After that..things settled down and it wasn't too bad. The audience laughed at the right places...and seemed to have a good time.

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on March 27, 2009, 01:48 PM:

Hi Paul,

if you felt it was taxing to watch on DVD, imagine watching it (as I did) in a cinema -huge image + deafening sound. [Smile]

I prefer Thunderball with Sean Connery! [Big Grin]

Cheers
Lars

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 27, 2009, 01:51 PM:

I agree Lars, Connery was the best 007 by far.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 27, 2009, 04:28 PM:

I enjoyed watching it at the cinema "where I work" a real roller coaster ride of action "brilliant" the DC3 flying looked really good. It suited the big screen and digital sound 750watt amps and a sub that can knock your socks off. [Wink]

we did very well with this film and ran it for a long while with no complaints from our customers. There are films best suited for a large screen and this was one of them and for that reason I wont buy or rent the DVD.

I was never much of a fan of the Bond films, but I did like "For Yours Eyes Only" but that was only because Sheena Easton not only sang the theme music but did the opening credits as well [Cool]

apart from that those old Bond films now seem a bit dated [Frown]

.

Graham. [Smile]

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on March 27, 2009, 04:34 PM:

I agree - it's most certainly the worst bond film ever.. It wasn't even really a bond film - more like a Jason Bourne film instead... Full of angst and characters whose behavior was totally wrong. Yuck.

Now Thunderball (as Lars points out) is a real James Bond film! In fact some friends and I just screened it (In IB/Scope of course) and we were commenting on what a huge difference there is between the 1960s Bonds and the current drivel.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 28, 2009, 04:05 AM:

Thunderball was a good one... but I can't say the same for 'You Only Live Twice' and 'Diamonds are Forever'! Personally I didn't much like Sean Connery as James Bond. This latest chap and Timothy Dalton were the best.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 28, 2009, 07:42 AM:

I agree I like the egde Dalton and Craig have.

But I did also realy like George Lazenby as well.

In Casino Royale with Craig, the big bonus was the villan was top drawer, Mads Mikkelsen, a cracking role.
Also Eva Green gave good mileage as well.

It just all worked for me and was a pleasant suprise.

So Q of S was a dissapointment.

I felt C,R, beat the Identity ones hands down myself although they are good, especially the first one.

I think C.R, is becoming my favourite, even the opening Bond theme and credits were spot on.

Best Mark.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on March 30, 2009, 02:15 PM:

Unfortunatly now Cubby Broccoli has died it cant possibly be James Bond as we know it. His Daughter has taken over and guess what??
Its all becoming PC and James Bond now falls in love and has feelings, what a load of Bollocks. nuf said. [Wink]

Nothing wrong with Daniel Craig, just the fact its no longer 007 as it should be. The Director of QOS interviewed on TV even tried to say the opening music has to be earned by the actor, and that was the reason given when he was asked why the first Daniel Graig Bond movie had the usual opening missing... funny that, never happened before as far as i can remember.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 30, 2009, 02:55 PM:

Tom,
Besides the basic problem of having no intelligible plot, the main thing that bothers me in Q0S is the totally ridiculous stunt fights. One expects some stretch of reality in Bond films, and that is fine and part of the fun, but the stunt fights in QOS go way beyond that and defy the most basic laws of physics. Just one of those twnety or so falls off the roofs would have killed any living person, never mind about that ridiculous free fall from the plane when the parachute opens up about 20ft from the ground!
These are just too cartoonish to be credible, and it just ruins the film for me.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 30, 2009, 10:02 PM:

More like "Quantum of Solemn"

Perhaps "Cumquats of Solstice"?

Eh, I just wanted to write "Cumquats".

It's fun to say ...

"Cumquats!"

(It makes my wife giggle!)

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on March 31, 2009, 01:58 AM:

You´re right about the stunts, Paul. Part of it is in the script itself, simply writing things like that 20 ft parachute drop, but the rest is the problem of CGI in movies in general today. Watching a stunt in a movie today BEGINS with the assumption that anything that looks the least dangerous will be CGI. The sense-of-wonder-factor is zero. [Frown]

In The Spy Who Loved Me you have that skijump off a cliff and Shots of the Lotus chased by a helicopter at 100 mph and you KNOW it´s for real, which makes it almost like watching it actually happen in front of your eyes. [Smile]

One doesn´t have to like the Bourne thrillers, but personally I like the way they focused on getting back to basics in terms of stunts; driving "normal" cars, fistfights and climbing on buildings that had some connection to everyday life.

Cheers
Lars

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on March 31, 2009, 06:39 AM:

I think one of the problems now is that Hollywood,(& other film makers), do try to out-do the last film. Its like a competion to get in as much hard action as they can. I think it reached a reasonable level with the first die hard film, & as has already been mentioned on here, i like Timothy Dalton, he was the first one to show a kind of emotion but it was done in a way that it was still 007.
Paul, you said a cartoonish feel, thats bang on the nail. Good fun but too scilly to be a good JB movie.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 31, 2009, 09:57 AM:

Cumquats I say! CUMQUATS!!

Connery is the Bond! Don't get me wrong, Roger Moore had his particular charm, (but I felt his charm was a little too "smarmy".

I also think your right about it being too cartoony and a desire to out do the latest thing. I've read comments on the internet from younger viewers who watched Cumquats of Solace and they look at the early Bonds and the main comment is "Boring!".

The sad thing is, Daniel Craig is the best looking Bond since Connery, in my humble opinion. I felt, at least in appearance, Craig was a good return to the "look" of the classic Bond. He's chiseled and truly looks like "danger" barely being held in.

With Roger, I always felt that Roger was one second away from turning towards the screen, a cartoon "glint" on the teeth and him saying, "Hi, I'm Roger!". Loved him in "Shout At The Devil" though.

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on April 03, 2009, 03:42 AM:

Well I bought the DVD as Tesco were selling it at £7.
Run it on my home cinema picture and sound very good.
We found it hard to follow the story and this fitted the reports from those seeing it at the cinemas.
One comment from my wife was he didn't go to bed with the girl.
Is this the PC mentioned.

Posted by Christopher P Quinn (Member # 1294) on April 08, 2009, 10:05 AM:

Not yet seen any of the new Bonds with Daniel Craig as Bond. I have got the Blu-ray of Casino Royal and i had a quick peek last weekend, looked quite good.

Quantum of Solace i can't comment on either, but i am now curious to see it, as there seems to be a differ of opinions on here.

As far as Bonds go, i personally think Rodger Moore is given a hard time. In my eye's he was an excellent Bond, his humour kept the whole movie in perspective for me, the more outrages the film was the more outrages he was.

Bring the fun element into Bond back, it's a laugh and not meant to be taken seriously

Favourite of all time, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, just loved it.

Chris.

Posted by Christopher P Quinn (Member # 1294) on April 14, 2009, 05:42 PM:

Watched Casino Royale this weekend and would give it a 4 out of 5 for a bond. I loved it apart from the breaks going on too heavy at the end, apart from that Daniel Craig has done a great job. A different bond, but yeah i like it. now to see Quantum.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on April 18, 2009, 03:30 PM:

Connery (and Steve McQueen) set the pace
for male stars of the era.

The last two new DVD releases of the Bond films
brings out the color, and as some have mentioned
makes the old tired looking Connery films appear as the new ones today.

For me, the Connery series are not tired and
the first five Connery films are timeless classics, - my personal favorites.

The first and third Moore films are the best in Rogers' series.

I remember seeing the Connery Bonds as second
go rounds and on double bill programs. With the exception of
You Only Live Twice as a single feature.

In a theatre, the IB Tech was amazing and the saturated colors are burned
and lasting in my memory. From Russia with Love has great
IB Tech. color.

The pacing of the films were perfect, and you also enjoyed the
film for the on location locales. It would bring you to a place
that you have never been to, and could only imagine.
James Bond traversing the globe, was suave, masculine, tough, romantic,
a jet setter, a mans-man.

Today the films are so swift, they do not permit you
to catch your breath. The action as Paul mentioned,
is surrealistic. It gives me a headache.

For me, Tim Dalton was cynical. Daniel Craig appears as a mix
of Connery and Steve McQueen.

The debate continues and the best Bond is the one
that people select as their own favorite. Especially
if it hits a special cord in a persons life.

Posted by Christopher Way (Member # 1328) on April 20, 2009, 10:06 AM:

QoS, unlike the other 21 Bond films is not from a titled book. QoS is a chapter as such in Casino Royale. Where (again) bond loses his wife, and sets out to get Quantum. This could be one of the reasons why the film does not equate to other JB films. Personally I support Thunderball, and also The Spy who loved me. This maybe because I was serving on HMS Rothesay and HMS Intrepid at the time, the two warships in the films.

I have met with 3 Bonds, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan. All fantastic people to meet, but by far in my opinion Sean Connery is the best, perhaps because he is ex Royal Navy as well.

Regards, Chris

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2