Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Two AICN Readers Seek Their QUANTUM OF SOLACE...

Rubbish! by Stuntcock Mike	Nov 4th, 2008 11:31:44 AM
This will be good. C'mon.
Damn.... by Karl Childers	Nov 4th, 2008 11:34:15 AM
It's getting sad. Althought I'm stuck seeing Madagascar 2 this weekend (I have a kid!), I will see QoS next week!
Next was bad? 'fraid not squier. by Stuntcock Mike	Nov 4th, 2008 11:35:02 AM
Cage at his goofiest.
White Stripes trying to do Shirley Bassey by terry1978	Nov 4th, 2008 11:37:50 AM
I know I was not the only one that laughed at that.
Go VOTE! by erichaislar	Nov 4th, 2008 11:39:46 AM

I'm going to see the movie... by moondoggy2u	Nov 4th, 2008 11:40:44 AM
I admit, Craig has grown on me a bit, but I still think Connery and Brosnan are better bonds. Casino Royale is one of the best Bond flicks I've seen a long time, however, so I'm going to give this one a go. I would be lying if I said I didn't have any trepidation over what sounds like an emaciated Bond flick...
That awful title by TrumpyEatsPotatoes	Nov 4th, 2008 11:41:09 AM
I'm looking forward to this, but I just can't deal with the title "Quantum of Solace". I'm really stunned they went ahead with that. Means nothing. Good name for a band, bad name for a Bond movie.
Oh, and I like the White Stripes by moondoggy2u	Nov 4th, 2008 11:41:21 AM
Still think they need a bass player, though.
I disagree with both reviews. by teh awesome	Nov 4th, 2008 11:43:41 AM
Bond isn't a terminator, he isn't unemotional. It's obvious that he has to keep saying he isn't after revenge in order to keep himself from going off the deep end. He's trying to will himself to stop seeking vengeance, but at the same time he is filled with rage for being made a complete ass of and he wants to get the people who did it, and for killing his girl. This bond is right in line with the "blunt weapon" Bond is supposed to be. He is supposed to kill and finish the mission without emotion. Emotion gets you killed. This is great bond, I put it right next to CR as my favorites. Read the books!! This is how Bond is.
"Yeah, let me get two tix for James Bond" by terry1978	Nov 4th, 2008 11:45:46 AM
Ain't nobody gonna go in there calling it Quantum for Solace, at least where I live.
The dude in the video by eatsnackysmores	Nov 4th, 2008 11:46:32 AM
has nothing on John Twomey. http://www.liketelevision.com/ liketelevision/tuner.php?chann el=1189&format=movie&theme=gui de Twomey's at 1:57.
I already voted, Banzai by moondoggy2u	Nov 4th, 2008 11:46:35 AM
A vote for Mccain in New York state is akin to pissing in gale-force winds, but I did it anyway.
I thought this was more of what Bond was from the books by spectrebeeyatch	Nov 4th, 2008 11:48:34 AM
He was brutal and I mean the action had to be taken up a notch after the last film. I agree the direction was not the best though I'm glad Foster won't do another Bond film.
Shit. I can't believe this sucks. by dr sauch	Nov 4th, 2008 12:06:42 PM
I was waiting. Oh well, at least I have a squidless Watchmen to look forward to.
IAmJack'sUserID... by mr_macphisto	Nov 4th, 2008 12:17:09 PM
...agreed. The first review is meaningless to me, because it was clearly written by an idiot. I'm almost glad he didn't like it. Judging by his comprehension level, that might actually bode well for my enjoyment of the film.
The Bond from the Books by TheNorthlander	Nov 4th, 2008 12:18:48 PM
I haven't read the books. Maybe I should, maybe they're a good read. But the emotionlessness is not the core issue here - it's the credibilitylessness. Look, I don't care what type of super training you have or how emotionless you are, if you drive like that and crash like that at the age of 40 you get physical injury. Please. The least you get is a bruise. If you're stabbed in the arm, even if we don't get to see any blood, there IS a scar afterwards. And anyone who's ever been in a fight, knows you need to catch your breath afterwards. If you're in a burning room you cough. These are directorial problems, and they draw you out of the experience. Maybe Bond doesn't need to do that stuff in the books, but film works differently. I'm just saying.
Any Americans watch a bootleg yet? by Quake II	Nov 4th, 2008 12:26:13 PM
What idiot decided to release a Bond movie 3 weeks apart in the UK and US? This is 2008! I bet this flick was online the first UK weekend it was released. I'll still pay to see it in theaters because I love Bond but this is a stupid marketing decision in this day & age.
Crap! I knew it! by maddox	Nov 4th, 2008 12:31:56 PM
When action is more important than story, the movie sucks. When that action is shot by shaky-hand, the movie sucks even more. Casino Royale should be the rule - not the exception to the rule!!!
The reason for the 3 week wait in the US by ArcadianDS	Nov 4th, 2008 12:42:10 PM
is because they know its going to get shredded by US press, so they released it overseas first.
what a crock of shit those reviews were by bongo123	Nov 4th, 2008 12:43:34 PM
i watched casino just before going to see quantum and fuck me was it not one of the best ways to spend near 5hrs, both movies rocked and quantum felt like the 2nd half of a great movie were they just rocket up the action after the first half character introductions, the movie is fecking class, cant wait to see again, craig is easily now the best bond
Hey man, no shame in likeing "Goldeneye" by Subtlety	Nov 4th, 2008 12:45:41 PM
I haven't seen the new one, but judging from the trailer it looks like it took Casino Royale's sense of self-importance and brought it to a dumb, loud, action film. (Rather than a stylish but inexpicably plotted thriller). "Goldeneye" was both dumb and loud, but it didn't for a second think it was important. It's fun, has an engaging plot and interesting characters, some great stunts and some wild setpieces, and is content to be just that. Why the heck would anyone want a SERIOUS Bond? I mean, Tomorrow Never Dies etc were terrible, admittedly, but not because they didn't take themselves seriously; they just had weaker stories, direction, acting, etc. Let Bond be Bond, I says. The world doesn't need another Bourne.
Don't listen to the haters. by Donkey_Lasher	Nov 4th, 2008 12:49:13 PM
I saw this last night and thought it was better than most action movies this year (that's including Indy 5, Hellboy 2) and kicks the testicles off the last Bourne film. I came out of the cinema not knowing what I'd seen at first, but after about 20 minutes I knew I wanted to see the next one...that's this movie does...it makes you want to know what's going to happen NEXT. Which has to be good. Not all loose ends are tied, there are a number of large and small details in this film that allude to an even greater force at work that we will see in the next film. It's more a continuation from the previous film and that's why I think many didn't "get" it. I heard the moans after wards from a friend. "But it's not BOND! The villain was crap and there were no gadgets!" I think that's to come. Bond is still a little green, and at the end of the film you feel that he is now the complete article, capable of doing and behaving like the bastard that Connery played. This IS Bond, it's just a little different.
They're right you know... by J.B.M.A.	Nov 4th, 2008 12:51:38 PM
I just got back from seeing it. An incredibly average film trying to be more serious than Casino Royal and yet ending up looking far, far sillier for reasons probably already mentioned above. And the whole 'Bond-as-a-machine-of-revenge' thing doesn't work. I don't care if the books play it this way, it's BORING. It doesn't matter if he's bottling up his despair if we never get to SEE that deep down he has a heart. Added to which Forsters action direction is disappointing - all coppy cuts and crash zooms without any clear sense of the geography of a scene. Transformers fans will love it. Only the newfound (read: stolen from Bourne)'grit' of the Bond franchise pushes it above other cinema fare.
Nonsense by Talcy	Nov 4th, 2008 12:52:43 PM
This is a good, solid action flick and a good Bond to boot. Not the best Bond but by no means the poor film some are saying. If credibility of injuries is an issue then stop watching action movies, plain and simple. It's not as good as Casino Royale but was a lot better than I thought it would be. It gives Bond closure and by the end there is no doubt that Bond is about to take on the enemy organisation without emotion or conscience. The final shot of the film reinforces this. The action was not cut as quickly as I feared but it misses out on money shot moments due to the editiing speed. There are also a couple of great intercut scenes. Less character development, yes, but not every Bond film has to fulfill that requirement. And the title DOES mean something. The word "Quantum". If you miss that then you need a CT scan. Watch the bloody film before you write it off and wind up sounding ignorant. Go see.
I can name worse Bonds than this... by Donkey_Lasher	Nov 4th, 2008 12:57:49 PM
Die Another Day, Never say Never again, For your eyes only, A view to a Kill, The Living Daylights, The World is not enough, Tomorrow never Dies. That's a third of all of them.
Don't they speak English in Britain? by bah	Nov 4th, 2008 01:00:31 PM
I only read a bit of each because I don't want spoilers, but that first one....yeah, eight years old sounds about right.
And..... by Donkey_Lasher	Nov 4th, 2008 01:01:37 PM
...at least they are trying something different in style. If Bond had never changed since Die Another Day this would be straight to video shit.
These movies are basically "Bond Begins" by terry1978	Nov 4th, 2008 01:25:50 PM
That's what they were touted as when they chose to do this, that's why they're more of the Bourne variety than the Get Smart variety, if you wanna call it that. Personally, I am waiting for the movie, hopefully the third, where M introduces him to all these tech gadgets he at first despises, but eventually comes to rely on, thereby becoming the Bond we know.
Gadgets by Talcy	Nov 4th, 2008 01:36:24 PM
There are gadgets in these films. They just don't draw attention to themselves.
Agreed Talcy by Donkey_Lasher	Nov 4th, 2008 01:43:18 PM
There's some great technology in this, but it's more real-world than laser watches and exploding cufflinks.
^Yes, but it's shit that we have in real life by terry1978	Nov 4th, 2008 01:43:29 PM
We want the silver pen that doubles as a medi-laser, etc.
THESE REVIEWS by The InSneider	Nov 4th, 2008 02:18:19 PM
speak the truth and the truth hurts. Trust me, I promise all you Casino Royale fans (I thought it was the best Bond too) will be SEVERELY disappointed by QoS. And Northlander's right, it's not a bad film per se, but it's a huge letdown when compared to Casino Royale and a giant step backwards for the growth of this franchise. For every good decision Forster and the writers make, they make 2 bad ones. You'll have fun with it while you watch but think about it the next day and you'll see how dumb it really is.
The action scenes are TERRIBLE by Reelheed	Nov 4th, 2008 02:58:12 PM
Car chase, boat chase, plane chase. Doesn't matter - they are all the exactly the same. Dozens of shakey closeups followed by whip pans then Bond does something you can't quite catch and the badguys blow up. And the plane chase is totally pointless. They drive out to the middle of a desert, hire a plane, get shot down stumble upon the bad guys secret plot by chance (doh! if only we hadnt shot him down he never would have discovered our secret plan!) then get the bus back to town. That scene is the worst in the film and reminds me of everything that was stale and old about Bond. It seems each time someone new takes the role the franchise is energized then its back to ticking boxes. Car chase? Check. Boat chase? Check. Plane chase? Check. Multiple chicks? Check. Explosions? Check. Ok we're done here...
R.E. Don't they speak English in Britain? by Reelheed	Nov 4th, 2008 03:01:36 PM
It is the official language but that really doesn't seem to mean very much.
talk about a polarizing effect.... Spoilers possibly by earlfist	Nov 4th, 2008 03:31:27 PM
I've commented a couple of times on aicn re this movie and wondering what planet I'm from ? Maybe the people who have a problem are the same sort of people who couldn't watch NYPD BLUE when of was 1st on coz of the camera work! Everyone who has seen loves it! But whereas I usually wonder who writes the positive reviews I am wondering if the bad ones are written by employers of paramount warners etc? THIS IS A FUCKING GREAT MOVIE THAT DELIVERS! The scene just before the climax (at the exit of the hotel) is so fucking cool I almost pissed myself. The movie really has been the only blockbuster that has delivered for me this year and I think the director letting the images do the work is the key. Do you need a scene that verbalizes the protagonists inner state, or can you handle one glare from Craig as he sips his scotch. Maybe this is not a movie for those with no visual vocabulary.
Northlander Bond books by jamestewart007	Nov 4th, 2008 03:42:41 PM
The books are awesome. yes, he is emotionless, near the middle of the series. but its more of a gradual desent into that. Bond bleads, gets bones broken, but still manages to get up somehow in them. But at the end of one of the books he is too broken to fuck. Seriously, how un-bond movie like is that? The books are based very much in realistic terms, with alot of flair. If he fell out of a plane, there would be a damn good reason for him to live through it.
jamestewart007 by TheNorthlander	Nov 4th, 2008 03:58:33 PM
Sounds good to me. See, that's what I'm talking about. Maybe I'll get one for the BNAT trip. What would be a good Bond book to start with? Also, The InSneider sums up my feelings about this film really well.
TheNorthlander by maelstrom_ZERO	Nov 4th, 2008 04:54:23 PM
If you're going to read the Bond books, you might as well start from the beginning, which is "Casino Royale." I've gone through about half of the Fleming Bond novels, and I have to say that Casino Royale is pretty much the best of them so far. Although the bad part is that the movie follows the book so closely that you might find it boring, given that you'll know (almost) everything that happens.
these reviews are on the money by newc0253	Nov 4th, 2008 05:14:42 PM
i saw QoS monday and completely agree: Craig is still an excellent Bond & the Ukranian girl is an excellent Bond chick but otherwise this film is kinda a waste: Casino Royale it ain't.
Goldeneye is FANTASTIC. by Kid Idioteque	Nov 4th, 2008 05:31:42 PM
As a video game. The movie sucked ass.
Bond rocks ! by DIBARAHMAN	Nov 4th, 2008 05:36:45 PM
yes he does.
What's funny is that by BillEmic	Nov 4th, 2008 06:54:39 PM
the first Bourne movie had a few silly and over-the-top moments as well, like when Bourne rides a body down the the center of a stairwell or uses a projectile pen to kill a baddie...
Have to agree with those reviews.. by TheAllSeeingEye	Nov 4th, 2008 07:37:17 PM
Maybe it's just the Casino Royale was that good, but QoS left me bitterly disappointed. I've not seen a worse Bond villain since "The World is Not Enough" and at least then, Robert Carlyle tried to be scary. The gay french villain in QoS was as intimidating as you'd expect a gay frenchman to be; unless of course he's got you tied up with your pants round your ankles. I think what got me the most was that, despite it's attempt at recreating Bourne style fights and action, it was boring. There was no meat to the story that led to each action scene. Instead it wanders aimlessly into each scene and throws in an odd moment of dialogue, like the bit on the plane with Mathis, that has no bearing on the story whatsoever. Yes, you could tell Bond was pissed off but there needed to be more to it. The scene where he checks into the fancy hotel in Bolivia just smacked of them trying to make him a bad mofo; instead he came across as a complete cock. Same with the ending. Bond is meant to despatch the villain in his/her own evil contraption or doomsday device. Bond was a success for years and while I agree a reboot was necessary there were some elements that did work in the old movies. Overall, I felt like i wasted my money going to see it; I'd rather have waited for the DVD. I still can't believe its the highest grossing UK box office ever too.
The Living Daylights... by JohnRevik	Nov 4th, 2008 07:54:38 PM
...was one of the best. Fuck off to the guy who said otherwise. Dalton rules.
Never been shaken or stirred until recently... by Ace of Wands	Nov 4th, 2008 09:43:05 PM
I'm no- cinematic- Bond lover: in fact I might consider myself a Bond hater; never liked Bond's casual cruelty, his very evident streak of sadism and his obvious misogyny ( sex can be used for dominance as well as an act of love). Connery schmonnery, Lazenby schlazzenbery, Moore schmorre...you probably get the picture, see where I'm coming from. But then came the latest version of Casino Royale and suddenly I had a Bond I could understand- still didn't have to like him, but I could see where his demons were given birth, where his casual disregard for life and women were forged; christ, the guy was human, not the cartoon of yore. I loved the downplaying of the gadgetry, it was still there of course but in a much more recognisable, less hokey, form; and the nods were there to the canon, '60's Aston Martin, Vodka Martini, announcing himself with his own name despite the fact that he's supposed to be undercover- a frakkin agent provocateur after all!!; all great touches. I came out from a Bond film actually thinking of going back for another viewing and looking forward to the sequel. That was a new experience for me. Now I've seen that sequel and despite some of the reviews above I can say, with a sigh of relief- sequels are tricky things- that I wasn't disappointed in the least and am- once again- looking forward to the next Bond film. Sure this was different to Casino Royale- but not sure why some necessarily equate that as automatically being a Bad Thing- and is a great continuation and a furthering of Bond's character. Yes, he's pretty much an unstoppable force in this but I'm not sure if those that have complained about this would be very happy if Bond folded and quit whenever he's confronted and also I think that they may be misunderstanding his drive here; he's not an automaton but he is certainly trying to make himself into one to dampen the hurt. He's called "horribly efficent" at one point which sums up his mindset pretty well. However, he does find some sort of solace. And that end scene, in the apartment in Russia, mirrors the opening scene of Casino Royale both in look, set up and atmosphere but with a different outcome, so I do think that this film should be seen as the concluding part and that both films are perhaps best seen holistically. There were also some nice references to other Bonds:Goldfinger obviously but also a couple of the Moore films- the titles escape me because I'm no Bond fan as I've said but hopefully people will recognise the tie scene and the sans parachute: also nice low level gadgets again, even with the name Universal Exports being allied to one of them. Must also mention Daniel Craig as Bond: I know that Connery is championed as Bond and I know that Connery is a great actor but, as far as I am concerned, Connery is a great actor Now, he wasn't Then. He's learned his craft well but Craig is at the point now where Connery was when he started making stuff like The Wind and The Lion. I suppose, in short, I'm saying that Craig is a more naturally gifted actor than Connery and has, once again to my thinking, given the first true acting performance as Bond. So disappointed, no; as thrilled as Casino Royale, no: looking forward to where Bond can go now, yes!!.
Ah!!!! It seems like QoS abandons CRap. by kabong	Nov 4th, 2008 11:29:56 PM
Bond is back for me, then. Picture me petting my white diamond-bedizened cat.
Finally some not so glowing reviews! I thought AICN was blowing by Brody77	Nov 5th, 2008 03:44:48 AM
I'm a massive 007 fan, pre ordered my tickets for opening night, and when I left I think I was even more let down than I was after Indy 4. The 45 minutes of adverts didn't help - Bond the watch, Bond the game, Bond the phone, Bond the flamethrower...on and on and on. And then we get a bloody "don't pirate films m'kay" promo by Daniel Frigging Craig!! This film sucked on almost every level - acting, plot, theme, action FUCKING SHAKEY CAM, direction, editing.... I watched all the interviews etc by Craig saying he'd had more input etc into this film. Well, Mr "Best since Connery" - FUCK YOU. In Casino Royale you did blow me away, you were awesome. In this one you were just a pouting robot. And did anyone know what the hell was going on in the DC3 scene? When CR came out, they went to pains to stress the reason you got "Bond, James Bond" and the theme right at the end was because that was him now being 007. Seems EON forgot about those comments. Oh I wish Martin Campbell hadn't passed on this film. He's done two of the best ever Bonds.
Jack White was'nt attempting to do a 'Bassey' by KillaKane	Nov 5th, 2008 04:10:21 AM
Love his title song, truly distinctive, dynamic and funky as hell (diggin that syncopated drum groove and the spazzed out fuzz tone solo)it still alludes to the Bond tradition but in a more contemporary fashion. IMHO it set's the film apart from it's 'golden age' predecessors, no one could touch John Barry in partnership with Bricusse or Black, smart move that the 'Craig' franchaise is going for such less obvious title choices. Shame Amy Winehouse was too strung out to cut her session with Mark Ronson, that could have been interesting.
First review nails it by Mr Kite	Nov 5th, 2008 05:56:36 AM
I saw this last night and was bitterly dissapointed. The film could have been ok (not nearly as good as CR) and the action scenes would have been fine if it wasn't for the shitty editing and shakey cam! Damn near impossible to see what was happening. Reminded me of The Bourne Supremacy. At least they toned it down for Ultimatum. I hate this style of filming and think it has totally ruined what could have been an enjoyable movie. The main theme suits the movie...its pants
This movie is poor by Midnightxpress	Nov 5th, 2008 06:23:04 AM
I saw this on it's release here in the UK. Now, I really liked CR, but this is,as the reviews mentioned, flat. The story makes no sense and worse the action sequences are bad copies of Bourne 2 + 3. Go with low expectations my friends.
It is gash by Mr_P	Nov 5th, 2008 06:32:50 AM
Brody77 I am with you. The only people I know who saw it and loved it are 12. Sums it up really. Awful, truly awful. Huge fan and the disappointment was painful. Worst action scenes ever, gave me a headache both nights I saw it and you couldn't see anything that was going on in them anyway. Seems found some magic hook in the boat scene that makes boats flip randomly in the air. Getting used to the theme now though but I like the white stripes
It's really BAD. Very Poor. by Alex Trevelyan	Nov 5th, 2008 06:51:04 AM
Saw it last night. Its so boring. Marc Forester was a bad choice. He fucked it up. You'll be very disappointed. Sorry for the bad news buts its absolute shite. Quantum of Shite. It also confirmed my doubts that Craig really isn't James Bond. Oh the the action is visually illiterate.
Quantum of Shite by Alex Trevelyan	Nov 5th, 2008 07:03:19 AM
Just to be clear the story is as inaccessible as the title. After watching QOS its plain that this production had many problems that the editor tried to fix but failed. Word of mouth here as already killed it.
We can speak English in the UK, which I will probably now dispro by Dalius	Nov 5th, 2008 07:09:31 AM
Just my 2 pence worth .... (contains spoilers) Saw QoS last night. Almost left before it started, becuase nearly all the adverts were QoS related, and so I'd felt like I'd seen half the film already. Overall, this is a good film. Not great, but good, and I don't regret going. It helps that my last cinematic outing was for the painfully bad High School Musical 3, so anything was going to be better than that, but I digress !! Firstly, parts of this film were brilliant - Craig, Bond's relationship with M, M's investigations and political manouvering back in the UK, Bond's drive for revenge, and that everyone else can see it apart from him, Felix's reaction to what the CIA are doing, etc, etc, etc. As another AICN reviewer has already noted, Vesper Lynd hangs over this film like a shroud, and her name actually gets mentioned more times than this films Bond girl (it was Camille, right?). But the Vesper storyline reaches a fitting conclusion when Bond drops her necklace in the snow, and you know he's let it go. So what's wrong with the film? Oddly, for a bond film, the weakest parts are the action sequences. After reading other reviews, I was expecting severe shakycam, but it wasn't that bad, so that's not the issue. The first problem is there are just TOO MANY action sequences, and many of them not needed, and burst in when not expected. Take the beginning, we start with an action sequence, which seemed cut short, but then we move into an interrogation, which within seconds explodes into another action sequence. Then Bond goes to check out a flat (sorry Americans, I meant "apartment") and there's a fight. Bond later goes to see Felix, talks for 30 seconds (literally), then another action sequence. And so on. Oddly, some of the most dramatic stunts from the trailer, such as the motorbike jump onto the boat and the fall through the glass ceiling, are over so quickly in the film that blink and you'll miss them. Some people have complained this film is too short, but after 106 minutes of almost continuous brutal action, I needed a lie down in a dark room, not another 30 minutes of action. Having said that, I was a little disappointed with the final set piece, the desert Hotel. The total time from its introduction to its destruction can't have been more than 15 minutes, and in it's first scene, the General comments on the Hotels (eco-friendly) hydrogen fuel-cell technology and says it sounds unstable. As soon as he'd said that, you knew what was going to happen, but oddly Bond isn't directly responsible - a jeep crashes in the underground car park, and within minutes, the whole place is aflame. Slight design flaw there, I feel. (Suddenly, the place wasn't looking so eco-friendly.) This did lead, however, to three of the most brilliant scenes in the movie - firstly, for a moment, Bond was seriously going to put a bullet through a Bond Girl to save her from a worse fate, and you believed he could. Later, after being repeatedly told off for the growing death toll, Bond actually doesn't directly kill the film's villain - just inspired, though I was a little disappointed not to be party to what Greene told Bond. Lastly, Bond doesn't sleep with Camille, and that was the right choice, becuase it wouldn't have fitted with where both characters were emotionally. I know not every Bond fan will agree with me on this one. Anyway, this film comes recommended. It fits with the universe of Casino Royale, although perhaps it is tied to CR a little too tightly. As I came out of the cinema, I overheard a woman say "I never saw the previous film, so I was completely lost", and I did feel for her. This film IS going to continue to split opinion, I think it's good (verging on the very good) but with faults, and it's a shame becuase most of those faults could have been easily remedied. Oh, and I quite like the theme tune ... wasn't really looking forward to hearing Amy W sing it.
'not much else going on in the cinema' by Mr Gorilla	Nov 5th, 2008 07:17:38 AM
In case you haven't read the reviews, turnip-dick, two films came out on the SAME FUCKING DAY as QoS, and they have both been getting rave reviews from the critics. One is OF TIME AND THE CITY, from UK's greatest living filmmaker Terence Davies. the other is HUNGER, about Bobby Sands in the Maze prison. So 'if you're going to the cinema anyway' why not see one of those two?
Also... by Mr Gorilla	Nov 5th, 2008 07:27:23 AM
QoS is on GENERAL F***ING RELEASE in the UK! So why are you putting up 2 badly-written reviews by spies, when you could just open up a talkback?
by Dude_gimme_tabs	Nov 5th, 2008 07:31:14 AM
It rocks, Craig is amazing in it and viewed straight after CR it is unbelivably good. Only gripe is it needed 20-30 minutes more which fleshed out a couple of character interactions.
Whats with the Moaning by ukmaxi	Nov 5th, 2008 07:47:40 AM
First i was annoyed at the poncy idiot from the Daily Mail (British tabloid), stating that QoS was the worst Bond ever!?! Giving it 2 stars (out of 5) when it deserves at least 4 (in my opinion). Honestly the opening to this film is right, every camera shot is an Action Whore's dream!! Another thing that is annoying is the constant moaning of the title! Quantum for those who don't know simply means "An amount or scale of something". and Solace means also very simply "Revenge" Does the title make more sense now?!? if not then your just obnoxious!
Despite what I said before I thought it was OK by Reelheed	Nov 5th, 2008 07:56:58 AM
I'm just a little sad that all the action scenes were thrown away by sloppy direction, writing and editing.
Best Bit is the Opera by Brody77	Nov 5th, 2008 08:28:35 AM
That's the only "Bond" moment in there. Though I did like when he flipped the guy off the bike. That was sweet. It's not the worst Bond ever (cough)Die Another Day(cough) but it's not even in the top 10. And you really have to trust the Bond opinion of a guy who calls himself Alex Trevelyan (For England, James? No - for me.) Anybody else wish they'd re-release Goldeneye with a David Arnold soundtrack rather than that electro shite?
Best bit !?!? by Dude_gimme_tabs	Nov 5th, 2008 08:51:52 AM
It had sooooo many great flourishes, including (but not limited to) the entire opera scene, the guy being flipped of his bike, stabbing the guy in the apartment in his femoral artery then calmly holding his wrist and waiting to feel his pulse end. Then there was the use of the DC10 on the smaller plane, the DC10 climb and the look on Bond's face, the clear nerve tingling menace when Bond confronts the Algerian, Bond and Mathis post the police stop, Bond and Camille holding each other in the flames, Bond and how he is gripping Greene at the end of the hotel fight, how Bond decides to deal with Greene in the desert, "I don't have any friends!", and then "We need to see this through to the end.". "I don't give a shit about the CIA, he's my agent."...... want me to go on ? Maybe it needs watching again ??????
Quantum of Solace by Dude_gimme_tabs	Nov 5th, 2008 08:55:20 AM
"Quantum" means a degree of measure. "Solace" means comfort. "Quantum of Solace" means degree of comfort. It is taken from the Ian Fleming short story which explores the amount of comfort, the quantum of solace, that you need in something like a relationship, or the decision to leave that relationship or path, before your decison to move on is the right one. THIS IS THE LAST TIME I EXPECT TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO DUMB FUCK'S WHO ARE TOO FUCKING IGNORANT TO ACTUALLY READ OR UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.
Mr Gorilla by TheNorthlander	Nov 5th, 2008 09:16:11 AM
Not everyone lives in the UK, ya know. Movies have different release dates in different countries and the schedule looks different in pretty much every city in Europe. None of those are out here, and most people - and I mean by far the biggest chunk of the cinema ticket pie - goes to see mainstream stuff like Bond, because they know what it is and what will happen. These people don't considder stuff like independent art films or documentaries. I'll see Hunger at the Stockholm Film Festival in November though. BTW, how's that anger management thing going?
Completely agree with these by filmcoyote	Nov 5th, 2008 09:17:57 AM
If i ever watched it again it might turn out not too bad but i was so disappointed in QofS that i don't think it'll get that chance. It desperately needs a sense fo humour. I'm not saying go Moore or Brosnan but at least Casino Royale mixed thrilling action, wry dark humour and quality acting. In this the action is rarely if ever thrilling, there's no humour and the acting... Craig has nothing to do but run, jump and pout, Kurylenko is fine for what she has but is no Eva Green, Gemma Arterton is stunningly awful (she seems to think she is making a Moore one!). Only the always reliable and great, but underused, Dench and Wright save this instantly forgettable movie.
Hey Northlander by Mr Gorilla	Nov 5th, 2008 09:23:23 AM
Anger management thing - going badly. Thanks for asking though. Sorry to presume you lived in the UK.
Hey, TheNorthlander, did you actually see this movie at all? by irishraidersfan	Nov 5th, 2008 09:35:54 AM
Your comment re: "Please. The least you get is a bruise. If you're stabbed in the arm, even if we don't get to see any blood, there IS a scar afterwards." Did you see the same film I did? Bond's nose is seriously bloodied, he has to stem bleeding from his arm with a piece of rag, and when he took his shirt off (for the ladies, no doubt!) he was COVERED in scars, recent and old. You're talking crap. As for others with their "There's no humour" - no, there are no SHITTY one liners that hark back to the 1980s. Quantum of Solace is really the direct, second half of Casino Royale. It has no story?!? It's a CHASE movie, for Chrissakes. It's the first Bond direct sequel, and enough of the "Oooh, it ripped off Bourne cam-o-vision". So what? It's a TECHNIQUE!
Alex Trevelyan - what an argument!! by irishraidersfan	Nov 5th, 2008 09:40:40 AM
You should write for a living! Wow! What style, what substance! Action is "visually illiterate", is it? I'd agree that the editing was more than a little jarring for the first third of the movie, but the fact that you can only post two line posts with no real argument to back up your opinion, well, speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Stadler and Waldorf by Mr Gorilla	Nov 5th, 2008 09:49:46 AM
Was that the name of those two dudes in the Muppet Show who would shout out heckles? Sometimes reading these talkbacks is like listening to those guys.
Ha ha! I'd have to agree! by irishraidersfan	Nov 5th, 2008 09:53:02 AM
Yeah, even reading over my posts, I sure do sound like that. But I've always hated when people post and all it says is, "Complete load of crap - waste of time" and give no reason why at all!
irishraidersfan by TheNorthlander	Nov 5th, 2008 11:27:13 AM
Yeah I'm not saying this movie didn't have technique. It's got technique coming out of its asshole. Most of the technique its got is visual however, and what it lacks is storytelling technique and directorial techinique. But what it really lacks the heart that Casino Royale had. And the biggest shame of all is that it could and SHOULD have been so much better in a lot of different important ways. Mr Gorilla - Brittain is a cool place, and I wouldn't mind living there. I've had a lot of fun times in the UK.
Sorry irishraidersfan by Alex Trevelyan	Nov 5th, 2008 12:25:52 PM
First that was not an argument I wrote but my opinion. Marc Foster's has no ability to direct action even with all the experience of Dan Bradely (2nd unit director, who also worked on the Bourne films). He clearly demonstrated that he cant visually communicate moving objects in the space time and space. Good action directors are great at communicating geography. The audience should always know what is going on when and where. Who is chasing who. They should never be left behind and pulled out of the story due to confusion. Foster intercut Bond chasing M16 agent Mitchell in the tunnels with a horse race. The only reason you intercut two events like these is to great momentum towards a third event which is the end of your sequence. These two events collide to create the third event. This didn't happen here. The intercutting lead nowhere. This lead me to believe the reason why the horse race was intercut was due to poor coverage or simply a boring tunnel chase between Mitchell and Bond. It was unforgivable in my book. Quite uncinematic. The opening car chase was appalling. Visual mumbling. Drunk images. No idea what is been said visually. One reason for this is the lack of wide establishing shots and or helicopter shots. Look at how Martin Campbell does it. The title cards for the location's took me right out of the film. The were jarring and poorly judged. No need for the fancy fonts. Thats just a few reasons. Also the value system in the world created in CR was not continued here. The culmination of the Mitchell chase sequence on the scaffold was fantasy land. Absolutely beyond the world or realism they were trying to maintain. That sequence belonged in Die Another Day. I hope this satisfies your "hatred"
Correction to typo by Alex Trevelyan	Nov 5th, 2008 12:31:07 PM
"moving objects in the space time and space" I meant "moving objects SHARING the SAME space and time"
"Olga Kurylenko really should get something to eat" by GreatWhiteNoise	Nov 5th, 2008 02:42:34 PM
Classic. As far as I can tell, though, the bar was set so high with Casino Royale that people are meeting this one with varying reactions to the same truth: it's just not as good as the first one. But so what? Maybe the naysayers just set their expectations too high, and that's manifesting itself as a negative reaction to something that's still, in empirical terms, a good film (as most of the reviews tend to indicate), even if comparatively inferior to CR. I seem to recall a few outliers saying the same thing about The Two Towers. But that movie has withstood the test of time within its canon, and I believe this one will too. As for me, to quote Jules Winfield: "Oh, I'm goin'. That's all there is to it, I'm fuckin' goin'." Count me in on the 14th.
Quantum of solace... by emeraldboy	Nov 5th, 2008 03:39:57 PM
Had the worst story of any bond movie I have ever seen. no hold that this film didnt have any story. at all. and the villains are dull. really dull. one of the villains was drawn as utterly dispicable. the general. he likes beer and young women. that is not suitable material for a 12 a movie. The bond makers are running out of road and I dont care how full of denials they are about this. They lifted the knife straight of bourne. As my bond loving friend said to me its all about the actor. She was right about brosnan, he had charm. which craig has none of. The bond makers are saying that they are going to give bond back his gadgets, his girls and his martinis and the quips. All the actors were so utterly under written that there was no tension whatsoever. I heard that re-edited this movie after its london press launch and it shows. this had all the hallmarks of a rushed production and it had all the halmarks of a movie where the script was utterly diluted. that is you paul haggis. The villains were subpar. This film was a dire retread of the world is not enough. populated by boring and dull villains. Marc forster was the wrong choice and it showed. If I want to see bourne. i will see bourne. They should at least give Craig a bigger budget, bigger story line and something a more emotional wallop. and stop with fanvy location caps. thanks. This movie had no real inventive action scenes just bone crunching ones. The scene with opera was good. But what was with the lack of tension. Bond is a human being. The free form stuff takes something away from this franchise. This film was weakened. by that scene in the hotel where M sends M16 after bond. and thier relationship is back to normal. after the foreign sec tells M to sack him or the americans will get him. This franchis is getting weaker. Back to the drawing board. me thinks.
The reason why there is 30 -40 mins missing is by emeraldboy	Nov 5th, 2008 03:59:07 PM
that I am lead to believe they edited the movie after the press launch. for what reason I dont know. But you can tell they did.
Emeraldboy by Alex Trevelyan	Nov 5th, 2008 04:37:18 PM
I like where your head is at. Spot on.
Thank you Dude_gimme_tabs, for explaining that by I Dunno	Nov 5th, 2008 07:21:50 PM
for the three hundredth motherfucking time! What the fuck?
Re-Edited? by Brody77	Nov 6th, 2008 02:36:29 AM
Well, you learn something new every day. Who did they get, Stevie Wonder? The main reason I get so riled up by the crapness of QoS - Daniel Craig was excellent in CR. Here he's totally wasted, seems they spent more time doing Anti-Piracy ads, Sony TV ads and whatnot that they forgot to concentrate on the film. This flick was all about the merchandising crap. Oh, and did you know Quantum means....only kidding, we heard him the first time.
Dark Knight Changes Everything Once Again. by Sidepocket	Nov 6th, 2008 02:47:00 AM
Back then, it was ok if a sequel to a movie was not as good as the original. But now The Dark Knight blew Batman Begins out of the water? We need our cake and eat it to, and sadly this time Bond did not deliver. That and it must hurt that The Dark Knight seemed more like James Bond action-gadget-realistic wise AND it was directed by a Brit. :P
Someone who is real and proper critic in IReland.. by emeraldboy	Nov 6th, 2008 04:25:33 AM
called Tara Brady. Saw the film in London at its press Launch and saw it again for the segment she does with the crime writer declan bourke. She said on air that the makers went back into the editing booth after the films press launch and they took the good bits out.

Talkbacks

Two AICN Readers Seek Their QUANTUM OF SOLACE...

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks