Quantum of Solace

Any Bond fans out there? I thought it was decent, not as good as Casino Royale. Why do all action sequences shot today have to be super close ups and 30 different shots per second? You can't follow anything and it gives you a headache. Kinda like Cloverfield.

Mabey the next one will be better.

It is such a sad state that movie companies have to act like ADHD kids on sugar bombs creating a billion cutscenes at once to create 'action'. I first noticed it happening in Transformers. My SWMBO has a serious boner for Daniel Craig, and we will most definitely be seeing this movie this weekend.

wildwest450 said:

Any Bond fans out there? I thought it was decent, not as good as Casino Royale. Why do all action sequences shot today have to be super close ups and 30 different shots per second? You can't follow anything and it gives you a headache. Kinda like Cloverfield.

Mabey the next one will be better.

Click to expand...

+1.

I mean, the script looks pretty good (Paul Haggis wrote films like Million Dollar Baby, Casino Royale, Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima), but couple the fact that they used way too many close ups (especially considering the wonderful places they filmed in, like the desert) and made the movie very short (the shortest EVER, by 10 minutes), there are still lot's of parts I don't get about the movie that were poorly or not explained. The last scene is also way too quick considering it is the climax of both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. As a fan, I'm sorta disappointed, but I guess they couldn't have made the film much longer than 2 hours as EvilTOJ explained, ADHD children would loose interest. But rest assured, it is not as bad as Die Another Day.

I can't wait to get the DVD to watch all the scenes they deleted and can't wait to see the next one (hopefully better executed than this one, maybe hire a new editor?).

For those interested, the only original Ian Fleming names left are: "Risico", "The Hildebrand Rarity", "The Property of a Lady" and "007 in New York", which are all names of short stories.

mrfocus said:

there are still lot's of parts I don't get about the movie that were poorly or not explained.

Click to expand...

I guess this movie is basically a continuation of Casino Royale, im going to have to go back and re-watch it to fill in some blanks.

I like the bond series in general but I cant say I like any of the past maybe 5 films. I dont think its that craig is a lousy bond I just dont think the scripts are good, and brosnan was fairly terrible as bond. I think the living daylights and for your eyes only are the best but most people seem to disagree so maybe I just have weird tastes. solace is definitely worse than casino royale but I didnt really like either.

30 different shots per second

Click to expand...

I guess because that's all the frames they have to work with. Really stupid.

Haven't seen it & probably won't. I only go to films that friends (who know my tastes) recommend. And from what I've heard, QoS ain't one of them.

Well I went to see it, and although it did have some of those annoying cutscenes I mentioned, it was still a pretty good flick. Although....

Remember the gameshow Family Feud? If the category was "things that annoy you in the movies" we would have won all of them. We had;

High ticket prices
High popcorn prices
Talking teens that wouldn't STFU
A baby in the row right in front of us
The same couple was TEXTING during the movie
The same couple was talking on the cell during the movie
People getting in and out of the row
The same AC units used to cool stem cells to absolute zero were used in the theater. I was cold in my coat!

No wonder we rent movies more and more.

wildwest450 said:

I guess this movie is basically a continuation of Casino Royale, im going to have to go back and re-watch it to fill in some blanks.

Click to expand...

I watched it a week earlier (for the 4th time), knowing it would be useful to understand QoS.

I'm a huge fan of Bond movies, but I really didn't like this one. I read an article that the stunt coordinator is the same guy that did the last 2 Bourne movies, which makes sense watching the action scenes. It just really didn't play out like a Bond movie. It played more like a Bourne movie. They cut through all the scenes pretty quickly. They really needed to extend things a bit and explain the plot a bit more. I understand wanting to keep the attention of all the ADHD kids out there, but I can't think of any Bond movies that did it quite this way.

EDIT: I have other complaints, but I can't get into them without spoilers. If you're not a Bond fan, or if you haven't seen Casino Royale, I wouldn't recommend this movie.

I think that the Brosnan films were much more tuned to the ADD crowd with stupid non-stop action, zero plot development, and increasingly absurd gadgets/getaways/etc

Parker36 said:

I think that the Brosnan films were much more tuned to the ADD crowd with stupid non-stop action, zero plot development, and increasingly absurd gadgets/getaways/etc

Click to expand...

I agree to a point. The absurd gadgets have always been a part of Bond movies. Certain items that come to mind are the jet pack in Thunderball, the rocket cigarettes in You Only Lice Twice, the Crocodile in Octo*****, and many more. It really isn't a Bond movie without some insane gadget.

CrazyToad said:

I agree to a point. The absurd gadgets have always been a part of Bond movies. Certain items that come to mind are the jet pack in Thunderball, the rocket cigarettes in You Only Lice Twice, the Crocodile in Octo*****, and many more. It really isn't a Bond movie without some insane gadget.

Click to expand...

True, but it became so over the top that it had basically become a pardoy of itself. I haven't seen the new one yet, but I loved Casino Royale and the direction they are taking the new Bonds.

I saw it last night and I actually liked it more than Casino Royal, I liked the action for the most part. Yeah it was a lot all at once but it worked, maybe I have ADD.