Quantum of Solace
I hope this new Yames Boned movie will not be as boring as License to Kill was, seeing as they seem similar.
I did enjoy the new guy, that rugged one, whose name so easily escapes me. He looks more like a common street thug than the regular spy we've all come to love and admire but whassisname did a good job though (imho).
Love the title.
I did enjoy the new guy, that rugged one, whose name so easily escapes me. He looks more like a common street thug than the regular spy we've all come to love and admire but whassisname did a good job though (imho).
Love the title.
Post edited by ZnorXman on
Comments
I'm glad the franchise is still huge though and i hope the new films a success
it was alright, cept it could have done without judi dench. and what was all that nonsense about you have to have three kills or something to qualify for a 'license to kill' . so does that mean the first 3 were murders?
Necros.
I was under the impression that the whole 'double-o' thing made him an assassin rather than a spy, and that was why the guy at the beginning wasn't initially worried.
yeah thats right, isn't there one called 'james bond in new york' too? would be interesting to see if that is next. :)
I'm quite liking the change in direction, as a kid Bond films were all the same and were enjoyable but now i'm older i'm quite happy with making it more 'real' rather than the usual Bond storyline script of gadgets, crumpet and funny comments.
Hopefully the new film will be as successful as the last one
nah they should have given him more gadgets to use than ever before, how about an ipod that turns into a gun, now thats keeping in with the kids. :)
i am suprised that bond didn't jump the shark when he went into space. you've got to admit that was the most ridiculous one of all. :)
I agree though. Casino Royale was a refreshing change.
Necros.
Necros.
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.quite right. don't get me wrong i love moonraker, totally camp, and one of the best endliners.
'i think he's attempting re-entry, sir'
class.
They wasted some really good stuff on that film. The first half hour or so was amazing, and then it all went a bit Roger Moore :(
I quite agree. I've never been a huge fan, but a fan when they've been on TV nonetheless (For Your Eyes Only and Goldeneye have been my only 007-cinema treats). My fave has always been Roger Moore because he's the 007 I grew up with, much like Tom Baker being the only true Doctor Who for me.
Never a huge fan of both, but enjoyed them.
Casino Royale remake was a breath of freah air though. It gave a dark, realistic, and ultimately vulnerable side to Bond that has been missing since, well, day one, apart from when Timothy Dalton threatened to open it all up with the massively underrated Licence to Kill. In the end, CR was too long a film but I think it's given an impetus into a more interesting side to the Bond character than the "sent on mission/meet bade/complete mission/finally screw babe".
CR could have lost the final half hour certainly and not been any the lesser film for it. I expect the up and coming film to be even better. They seriously need a new bad guy in it though. Not the main one, his sidekciks are always better.
Exactly, the idea of Bond being captured, tortured, and posibly brain-washed was great, and boded really well for the rest of the film. Trouble is, the film went from being, as mentioned, gritty and realistic, to an over the top fantasy/science fiction film. I could write a list of what I thought were failings, but the virtual reality shooting range (which Moneypenny later uses for her own, non-gunplay involved, amusement) was the worst.
On the plus side, the bloke who played the Western-ised version of the evil Korean was very good, and deserved a better storyline than he got.
And like most people, I thought that Daniel Craig would be rubbish as Bond, and that the change in direction that Casino Royale would take would be a major error. And like most people, I was very glad to be proven wrong. I'm not saying Craig is a very good Bond, and certainly I think Pierce Brosnan should have kept the role (Brosnan is my second favourite Bond, after Connery, perhaps we should have a poll on the best Bond and the best Bond film?) but he did very well in Casion Royale, far better than we were expecting. And Casino Royale was excellent, maybe the best Bond film ever. Well, me and some of my mates think so anyway. :)
I do wish that they'd not included the medical-kit thing, though, as that was a bit too close to science fiction. Apart from that, it was a great film.
DEfinitely the worst part of the entire film. After hearing about it I was expecting much worse from that scene and in the end it gave Bond an invincible side that the film had been gearing against. It should have been cut from the final release, but I guess they pandered to the Bond fans.
They made up for it in the torture scene; defintely the most graphic I've ever seen in a Bond film. It was uncomfortable viewing to say the least. It reminded me a lot of *that* Reservoir Dogs scene.
Isn't Bond supposed to have infinite health? ;)
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.