MOVIES - Quantum of Solace - Don't waste your $

[JohndeFresno]

What ever happened to James Bond? Who kidnapped him? Because he wasn't found in the latest Bond installment, "Quantum of Solace" (whatever that means). Stupid title; I should have known.

OK, OK - this ain't about leverguns. But let's face it - I'm talking primarily to a baby boomer or older audience, Conservatives who like guns, action, patriotic stuff, many of whom are active or former soldiers and "intel" operatives of various types; and therefore adventure movie lovers. And we helped James Bond grow up as we told him what to do next.

The first 3 minutes were terrific, because that was the titles, a weird intro theme song, and graphics effects. Then from there, everything fell apart. The film had:
a) A crazy car chase that you couldn't follow - who was hitting whom?
b) A fight sequence that was so fast that you couldn't really pick up on those great Bond maneuvers as with the previous films.
c) No Bond suave character, although it wasn't Steven Craig's fault. The script dudes wrote out most of the suave lines, the character development, and meaningful dialog.
d) No Moneypenny. Just a bunch of huge screen computer generations that were supposed to "wow" the audience as people waved their fingers and pictures spread out onto the display. Already done in other spy flicks - b-o-o-o-ring.
e) No "Q" with his cute gadgets, no reparte as Bond played with the toys before he was supposed to, making you laugh as poor ol' "Q" fretted and fussed.
f) Not much of a plot, for that matter. And no dramatic buildup. My wife and eldest daughter, at one point that was supposed to be near the climactic point of the movie, were texting each other on their cell phones!
g) I should have known, also, because there was hardly anybody in the theater. After all, this was Bond movie on the first day of release in our area!

Save your money, wait for a rainy day, get some popcorn ready and watch it on Netflix. You can even tumble your brass, because you won't really miss much dialog. Just turn the volume up when "M" (Lady Judy Dench) speaks, because she had the only intelligent dialog in the whole production.

Otherwise, you will be disappointed (and probably angry that you spent good money and the time to watch this fluff). I certainly was.

Don't believe me? See what Ebert says. You know - he's usually the guy who likes EVERYTHING in Hollyweird:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /811129989

[bigbore442001]

There is another cogent fact to bear in mind regarding the newest James Bond films. The main character actor , Danile Craig, is rabidly anti-gun. He will spout his pablum to anyone with ears to hear it. Why should I contribute one cent of my hard earned money to some useful idiot such as him? If I can help it, I will not do so.

[homefront]

The main character actor , Danile Craig, is rabidly anti-gun. He will spout his pablum to anyone with ears to hear it. Why should I contribute one cent of my hard earned money to some useful idiot such as him? If I can help it, I will not do so.

Another Hollywood hypocrite.

[GANJIRO]

IMHO Sean Connery is the only real James Bond, been down hill ever since.

[J Miller]

IMHO Sean Connery is the only real James Bond, been down hill ever since.

Yep, you are so right. When Sean Connery quit making Bond films they should have retired the series.

Joe

[AkRay]

Whenever I hear Sean Connery's name, I remember the line, "Remember Dunblane!", uttered to encourage the disarming of the law abiding gun owners of the U.K. I've enjoyed his work in the movies, particularly "The Untouchables," but I can't support that sentiment.

[RIHMFIRE]

I agree......It was awful...hard to follow...plot sucked
we watched a bootleg copy in hunt camp...
at least we didnt pay for it!

[JohndeFresno]

Who or what is Dunblane?

(Edited here) Never mind, I found it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Basically, a sex pervert who should have been locked up shot up a school with 9mm and .357 Magnum pistols, the worst massacre of its kind in the British Empire. I'll curtail further comment on this, and on the British penal system, or this will have to be placed into the "Politics" column, and that was not my intention with the post. But you might want to read this and see for yourself.

[Blaine]

I thought the remake of Casino Royal that he made was nearly a perfect James Bond.....sorry to hear they went down hill so fast....and yes, Sean was the best one ever.

[sharps1863]

I didn't watch Casino Royale either. This Daniel Craig Just doesn't fit my image of James Bond. Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Bronson. Were the best in that order. George "Lazinbee", Timothy Dalton rated about the same. The truth is I dont know any actor that could be bond with what we have to choose from these days. Albert R Bracolli would be turning over in his grave, if he could see what they have done to Bond James Bond.

[Ben_Rumson]

& Goldfinger was the best of all Bond films!
I noted in the previews for the new film Austrailia the use of a Win 95 carbine! Nicole Kidman wasn't too bad either!

[JDL]

My favorite, From Russia with Love (whatever happened to Daneilla Bianchi) with Dr. No in second place. Sean Connery is the only Bond and the others are wannabes.
JDL

[Slick13]

I didn't watch Casino Royale either. This Daniel Craig Just doesn't fit my image of James Bond.

I've never read any of the Bond novels, but I've read many reviews that Daniel Craig comes closer than anyone to the Bond of the novels. Problem is, we've all got images in our heads of what Bond should be, thanks to 40 years of movies. Roger Moore will always be Bond to me, because that's what I grew up with.

I thought Casino Royal was reasonably good, and will probably see Solace in theaters.

Michael

[Arminius]

What ever happened to James Bond? Who kidnapped him? Because he wasn't found in the latest Bond installment, "Quantum of Solace" (whatever that means). Stupid title; I should have known.

OK, OK - this ain't about leverguns. But let's face it - I'm talking primarily to a baby boomer or older audience, Conservatives who like guns, action, patriotic stuff, many of whom are active or former soldiers and "intel" operatives of various types; and therefore adventure movie lovers. And we helped James Bond grow up as we told him what to do next.

The first 3 minutes were terrific, because that was the titles, a weird intro theme song, and graphics effects. Then from there, everything fell apart. The film had:
a) A crazy car chase that you couldn't follow - who was hitting whom?
b) A fight sequence that was so fast that you couldn't really pick up on those great Bond maneuvers as with the previous films.
c) No Bond suave character, although it wasn't Steven Craig's fault. The script dudes wrote out most of the suave lines, the character development, and meaningful dialog.
d) No Moneypenny. Just a bunch of huge screen computer generations that were supposed to "wow" the audience as people waved their fingers and pictures spread out onto the display. Already done in other spy flicks - b-o-o-o-ring.
e) No "Q" with his cute gadgets, no reparte as Bond played with the toys before he was supposed to, making you laugh as poor ol' "Q" fretted and fussed.
f) Not much of a plot, for that matter. And no dramatic buildup. My wife and eldest daughter, at one point that was supposed to be near the climactic point of the movie, were texting each other on their cell phones!
g) I should have known, also, because there was hardly anybody in the theater. After all, this was Bond movie on the first day of release in our area!

Save your money, wait for a rainy day, get some popcorn ready and watch it on Netflix. You can even tumble your brass, because you won't really miss much dialog. Just turn the volume up when "M" (Lady Judy Dench) speaks, because she had the only intelligent dialog in the whole production.

Otherwise, you will be disappointed (and probably angry that you spent good money and the time to watch this fluff). I certainly was.

Don't believe me? See what Ebert says. You know - he's usually the guy who likes EVERYTHING in Hollyweird:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /811129989

+ 1

>excactly< my Opinion.

Couldn´t have said it better!

Hermann

I am heavily disappointed. FIRE that director!!

Keep DC

[Arminius]

And, to make matters worde, he carries an Omega!

What ´s this? The end of all Bond films? ( "Alpha to Omega" )

Ouch, just noticed I am not at "The Rolex Forums".

)

Hermann

[gamekeeper]

Whenever I hear Sean Connery's name, I remember the line, "Remember Dunblane!", uttered to encourage the disarming of the law abiding gun owners of the U.K. I've enjoyed his work in the movies, particularly "The Untouchables," but I can't support that sentiment.

I'm with you AkRay, Sean Connery got rich and famous portraying someone who could handle a gun, yet he wishes for all of us to have our guns confiscated!

[rjohns94]

I must have seen a different movie than you guys. I happened to like the movie. Plenty of action, toned down corny lines. My only gripe was in the cinematography of the action scenes. M was great. Anyway, guess I am all messed up because I liked it.

[Tycer]

I read all the Ian Flemming Bond books, and Craig fit the books very well. I'll see this one too. Won't hurt my feelings if it follows the style of the books like the last one. Won't hurt my feelings if it sucks.

[CowboyTutt]

I have to agree with Tycer on this one. I read "From Russia with Love" and NONE, I mean none of the actors met the description. Did you know he had a scar on his cheek? That he was essentially "anti-social" and had few friends? But those he had he was very loyal to? I love Sean Connery as much as the next guy, but Roger Moore was a poor joke even though I grew up with him as well. I did enjoy Pierce B.s portrayal even if if may not have been very accurate.

Daniel Craig comes very close to the mark of the books, I must say.

It is only the fault of his movie script-writers and producers that "Quantum" did not deliver. Casino Royal was probably the most authentic to the book portrayal of J. Bond I have ever seen.

-Tutt

[KWK]

A good friend of mine reported at dinner tonight that Q.S. was excellent and that he looked forward to acquiring it on DVD when it came out. I thought the last Casino Royale was about the best Bond film, although I do appreciate the early Connery films.

As for the "stupid" title, it is one of Fleming's own.

[Ysabel Kid]

+1 on Sean Connery being the nest Bond.

+1 on "Goldfinger" being the best Bond flick.

+1 on not spending money to support rapid anti-gunners. I didn't see the last one, and I doubt I will see this one. If I do, I'll wait until I can see it at the dollar theater, or a cheap rental.

[JohndeFresno]

...As for the "stupid" title, it is one of Fleming's own.

The title was from a short story in the collection called "For Your Eyes Only" and had nothing to do with the "adventure" at hand - it was about a lost love; nothing else. It didn't fit the movie, even though the secret criminal society was known as "Quantum," which I think they used so that the title would fit.

The movie producer claimed that the "Solace Quotient was zero" - referring to Fleming's statement in the titled short story when one's heart is broken - when Bond lost his love from the previous Casino Royale movie. That is more than a stretch from what goes on in the framework of the movie, even though the lost love was mentioned in this last flick. Many other folks on the film disagreed with the use of that title, according to what has been disclosed about the movie. But he used the title, anyway.

See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/trivia

I won't put in any spoilers here - but those who waded through the movie will know what I mean. If the writers of this movie had followed the Bond tradition, at least from the way his stories were portrayed on the screen in past episodes, they would not have had Bond's first female ally dispatched in the manner shown. You know - Bond always beds a girl at the start of the movie who gets killed. Since the previous villains always had a tie between their passion and their method of sending a message to their betrayers - the girl should have been found drowned, somehow - perhaps placed inside a waterbed mattress, for the scene we saw. That would have been equally shocking and unique. But what we saw instead just "didn't work," as the movie folks like to say - at least for me.

I agree with those who say that the best Bond was Connery. Like others here, I have read several of the Fleming books, but I don't think that the Bond of novels was much like Craig. He was a daring type, but he insisted on the Martinis made a certain way, and smoked a cigarette with the three gold stripes made by one tobacconist, which gave away his presence in one book where he was caught and tortured on a chair with a racket applied to his more private parts, as I recall. This latest Bond permutation drinks beer - an English "Joe Sixpack."

And, anyway, the whole gestalt of the Bond MOVIES started with Connery, who was handpicked for the role when, according to what has been written, he was spotted by somebody who was planning the first movie of the Bond series (Dr. No), as he walked by him with what was documented as "a cat-like grace." I don't see Craig, as he portrays Bond, charming the ladies as Sean Connery did. He's just a tough guy. Anyway, none of the Bonds were truly believable after Connery left for fear of being typecast for life in his movie career. Perhaps they should have carried on with another fictional hero, like Matt Helm or Nick Carter, both of whom had a long line of books and who were more violent than sophisticated.

[GonnePhishin]

Sean Connery will always be the REAL Bond as far as I'm concerned.
Roger Moore was ok but was kind of prissy at times, but Timothy Dalton kicked butt in the couple of films he made.

Yeah, they should retire the character.

Just my couple of pennies worth