Be Excellent To Each Other

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Saw it tonight.

And... er, yeah. Something just seemed to be missing. Whereas Casino Royale was interesting but seemed to go on forever, this was confusing and seemed to end abruptly.

In fact, I'd be tempted to say that it's the middle movie of a trilogy, as it picks up where something left off but then ends with a lot of things seemingly unresolved and ready for a concluding chapter.

A lot of it seemed half-baked, sadly. What was the point of Fields? We didn't have any chance to get attached to her at all, she just acted annoying, Bond shagged her, then she died. The annoying CIA agent (not Felix Leiter, the moustache guy) was set up very well as an obnoxious jerk... and then gets a passing mention at the end and that was it. Who was the French bloke who Bond seemed to be mates with and was then killed? And the pathetic villain? Bah.

Alas, it wasn't that good. They were too busy product placing (look! Aston Martin, AND Alfa Romeo, AND Land Rover, AND Ford) for some things not to be utter bollocks. Your compound is powered by fuel cells, you say, and it makes you nervous? Better start running, as it's obviously about to completely explode.

Action? Good. But story? Meh.

Agreed, pretty much. The camera man was obviously a bit wobbly during the filming, this time. I don't remember any character names apart from Bond & Co apart from Mathis. It felt a little...unfinished.

Shewolf commented that it was a good action movie, but didn't really feel like a Bond movie.

The rumblings that they are planning to return to a more Bond 'feel' for the next one better be true.

I am fed up with blurry action sequences where I can't tell what's going on. Yes, yes, I'm sure they spent a lot of money on the Aston Martin vs Alfa bit, or when he's chasing the traitor bloke across the rooftops... but that's wasted if I'm unable to see it!

I quite enjoyed it, although it appeared to be heavily edited.

Fool! Don't you know that ENERGY is added to a scene if the camera is operated by an epileptic with a strobe attached to his forehead?!

Yes, but we don't see through his eyes, we see through his camera. If it's all first person and we're seeing it through Bond's eyes, fair enough.

But we're not seeing it through Bond's eyes, so why do they think we want to see it through the eyes of a spasming epileptic retard who left their glasses at home? This is why people are so fond of 80s action movies - because you could fucking see the action bits.

In the case of Lord of The Rings, it's so that they could have violent scenes without showing much violence. Hence a lower age rating. I agree though, it's very infuriating.

This. Terrible camera work coupled with even more terrible editing utterly ruins most films these days, and a lot of tv, too.

Agreed. Very meh.

There seemed to be lots of stuff going on and then there were a few explosions, something happened which wasn't explained properly, and then it finished.

LTIA

I'm glad I'm not the only one that felt this way about the film then. I'm thinking about going to see it again, because I left feeling that I had obviously missed something, or that maybe I just wasn't in the right frame of mind for it or whatever. I remember enjoying Casino Royale a lot more.

I've not seen it yet, but I'm not encouraged by you lot, it must be said.
I had my suspicions when they picked Marc Forster to direct that we would end up with a confusing mess - he doesn't have the necessary experience to make something like this. However, it could simply have been over-edited I suppose and like a lot of those hyper fast cut hand held shot movies it's difficult to see what's going on but when you've watched it for the gazillionth time in the editing suite it all makes perfect sense to you!

exactly. Quite good fun to watch as long as you don't try to think about it afterwards.

what does "quantum of solace " actually mean?

Amount of Comfort?

Apparently the game's shit as well - SHOCK!

He's uncertain whether he's actually lonely?

So he wants to get a cat.

It's the title of a short story by Fleming, although only the name was taken for the new film. See here for a description of the story and what the title means.

I quite liked it, actually. A solid 7.5/10 from me.

The car and speedboat chase was a bit rubbish, mind.

Hmm. Saw this tonight. Fairly entertaining, despite:

• Stupid shaky camera. If I can't work out who the fuck just shot who, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
• 3 of the adverts before the film all contained clips of the film. FUCK OFF - I'M ABOUT TO WATCH IT, YOU TWATBAGS.

Indeed, there was even a decent FACT trailer before the film - Daniel Craig saying "Lots of people rely on the music industry for their livelihoods - please don't copy this film". Not patronising, not demonising - I was hugely shocked.

HOWEVER:

i had the misfortune to be sat on the front row in the new odeon in liverpool. christ it was hard to watch that first car chase. and reading subtitles is tricky when you have to turn your head like you're at a tennis match!

Oh it was OK. As Bond movies go.


I just watched No Country for Old Men though. What was *that* all about?

Strange one that, ain't it?

Don't tell me he gave her magic instantAIDS???? Zounds!!!!

No but...

and comes in large quantities also!

My missus reckons I look like Daniel Craig. Other than the blond hair, blue eyes, eye bags and big round head, I don't see it myself

I watched my first James Bond film last night. Can I have the two hours of my life back please?

Which was it?

The Spy Who Loved Me.

I did like the bit where Jaws ate the shark though.

that is not the best. Don't get me wrong, I have much love for the Moore era, but they're not the best intro for newbies.

Moore is the daddy.

Which Bond film should I watch then? I'm tempted by Casino Royale as I fancy the pants off Daniel Craig.

Ghey. He's gay, and you're gay. Gay.

Anyway - the Brosnan ones are the most bestest.

Goldfinger is a goodie for newbies, but my personal favourite from that era is From Russia With Love.

Casino Royale is excellent, as is Goldeneye and my favourite Moore one is Live & Let Die.

It doesn't really matter which ones you start with as they're so different anyway. However I think it probably helps to have been a child when seeing the Roger Moore Bond films for the first time.

We've borrowed the Pierce Brosnan one with Hale Berry in it. Should I give that a go?

NO! Die another Day is quite officially the worst Bond film ever. Don't sully your eyes with it. Seriously

Actually, Bond music usually matches the film name, right? So why does Quantum of Solace have a theme tune called 'Another Way to Die'? Sure, it'd be an arsehole of a job working 'Quantum of Solace' into a song, but why didn't they just call the film Another Way to Die? Especially considering the only Ian Fleming thing about it is the title, and the story was completely made up for the film.

Teh best

Yes please.

I would recommend Goldeneye as a good into, then any of the moore's really

Roger Moore?

Love too

I've always maintained that Roger Moore is best and almost always been told off for it, with people naming Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan or Timothy fucking Dalton as obviously the best Bond.

A quantum of solace refers to Bond's search for a calm mind. Sort of referred to when the Bolivian chick says



He's doing what he knows (being M's 'blunt instument') to try and put his last memory of Vespa to rest.


I reckon they could've made a great song from the title, but not by asking Jack White. Jack Black would've done a better job

But the title came from a Fleming short story, and the plot of this film bears no relation to that story. So any meaning to it has been completely retrofitted - and they could quite happily retrofit some meaning to 'Another Way to Die' instead.

Haven't they used the word "die" in Bond titles enough though?

Edit -- specifically, after "Die Another Day", you can't have a film called "Another Way to Die". That'd just be shit. Also, I just fact-checked myself on Wiki, and it seems Quantum of Solace had a budget of $230 mill. They made the whole of the Lord Of The Rings for $280 mill, 12+ hours and all those effects shots; so how did they spend so much on Bond?

They could have called the song anything they liked (including A Need To Juggle Badgers) - the point is why didn't they give the film the same name?

Maybe I should have IMHO'd that last post. Since it was my interpretation. I personally think it was cool title.

Quick quiz - one dimlie for the first person to name 5 bond films with one word titles..... GO!

goldfinger
moonraker
goldeneye
thunderball
octopussy!

Me too. Sean Bean's in it too, see. Then the next two Brosnan ones. But not Die Another Day as it's awful.



Bloody hell. That's a good question. I know he must have had a fair few, but it can't have all gone on Daniel Craig's haircuts, eybrow plucks and gym membership. But I can't see what else there was for them to have spent the money on.




You are 100% correct.

@ Kalmar

Also, how many of those 'words' do you think existed before the film was released? Octopussy? Maybe not