ChipSlap Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Roger Moore was the worst Bond ever. I still can't believe they wasted so much of my time with him as Bond. He was the Bond du jour during my prime time for watching Bond films and I couldn't WAIT for him to be replaced. Agreed. Everything that's wrong with Roger Moore as Bond is encapsulated in the scene from The Spy Who Loved Me where he's driving the Lotus out of the Mediterranean, disgustedly tossing the fish out the window. Connery would have left it alone and dealt with it later; Daniel Craig would have bitten its head off as a warning to other sea life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cucumber_Jones Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I saw it 1 hr ago and [censored] loved it. I had to remind myself to compare it to a brosnen bond and that made me realize how great it was. I actulay think that it was as good as Casino Royal if not better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downtown Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 The funny thing about bond is that people never used to compare them to 'regular' movies. they always had their own special yardstick reserved for the bond flicks, but with these last two people are actually seeing them as not only good bond movies but good movies in general. obviously quantum of solace wasn't as good as Casino Royale. that was an ian fleming written story and it literally created bond. however, quantum isn't half as bad as the press is making it out to be. if i could change one thing about it, it wouldn't be the bourne-style fighting, which is a far more realistic way of approaching bond, but to get rid of that stupid ''shakey action cam'' they used. everything was wayyyy too fast and there were far too many close-ups during action sequences, i had no idea what the hell was happening during half of them. just needed to pull back a little bit. the film score was very well done, however. overall i give it an 8/10 versus the casino royale 10/10. quantum could have been a bit longer, too. didn't seem like there was 'enough', you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRasta Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 Just saw it, loved it, can't wait for the next one. I like how this Bond is willing to get dirty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakemaster Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 What a total mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.t. Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Since Brosnan is out, I'm goin to the movies again. Tv repeated some Bonds, and everytime it was one with Brosnan, I had to switch the channels. The new style (less gadgets, less ridiculous jokes) fits very, very well. We'll see if the Swiss guy will direct another Bond (Casino Royale was top notch and not easy to follow up), but Craig is the best since Connery... I agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dluddy Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Saw it last night and while I liked it, I found the action cam filmed action scenes too much and hard to follow. I recommend seeing Casino Royale again before seeing this. Wish I did as I missed a lot of the plot continuations. Craig is an awesome Bond IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Saw it this weekend. Daniel Craig is nice as Bond but the new movie is not really a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 but to get rid of that stupid ''shakey action cam'' they used. everything was wayyyy too fast and there were far too many close-ups during action sequences, i had no idea what the hell was happening during half of them. just needed to pull back a little bit. the film score was very well done, however. overall i give it an 8/10 versus the casino royale 10/10. quantum could have been a bit longer, too. didn't seem like there was 'enough', you know? The "shaky action cam" definitely won't be good for those with LCD TVs once the Blu Ray is released. I agree with the feeling that there wasn't enough, I felt the same thing, and when it ended, I was a little surprised as I expected more. It felt like half a movie, kinda like how Pirates of the Caribbean 2 was left open for the 3rd. I hope this isn't the way movies will go... (in terms of endings). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4GTR Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Saw the movie last night after heavy anticipation. I like Daniel Craig for Bond, my complaints don't lie with him, but with the direction and path the movies are taking. You guys really said it all already. The shaky, too close camera ruined the action scenes. There was no sharp whitty comments from bond, just a stone cold (like everyone else) damaged goods action hero-esque attitude. Craig wasn't even interested in describing his favorite drink, pawning the "chore" off on the waitor. Lastly, if the director couldn't make up his mind who the villian was, or whether he was good or bad, how am I supposed to? Why should I care about the plight of the tall beautiful brunette aside from her being a tall beautiful brunette? There is a lot left to be desired, and overall I was disappointed. I wouldn't say the film was too short, as my anticipation to see the film turned to anticipation for it to be over. Yet, for some strange reason I want to see it again. Maybe to see if it was really just that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratchpot Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Craig wasn't even interested in describing his favorite drink, pawning the "chore" off on the waitor. To be fair, he was drunk in that scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ducatista Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Saw Q of S last week here in Oz. What a disappointment! Craig was convincing as a new style Bond in (the remake) of Casino Royale. That film retained the witt and understatement of Fleming's character as a contradiction to the new pugnacious wild boy image. For example, check out the devastating psychoanalysis M's accountant practices on Bond when they first meet on the train, and the great dialogue as the various villains sit around the poker table: both examples of clever, dare I say it, adult writing. Compare that with Q of S: just one unbelievable action sequence after another, each one terminated by an explosion of some kind. Then Bond's newly cut face appears ready for the quiet bits: Bond and his agent mentor-father-figure forgive each other their indiscretions before the old guy dies; next Bond, the wayward son type, confronts his M, his mother-substitute; and finally Bond commiserates with his guardian agent and brother-substitute, Felix. (does Bond like women any more?) Like the Bourne Identity style action sequence editing, the story and the characters have been reduced to just another special FX action movie. Vale 007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4GTR Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 To be fair, he was drunk in that scene. True. That and every other scene! Not that i'm hating, I was jealous since I was sober during the viewing. ...Could be half of my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 (does Bond like women any more?) Didn't he have the woman in the hotel who was supposed to turn him around at the airport? And he was smart enough to know Russian (the character, I know the actress is Ukrainian) women aren't worth the bother, they'll suck your wallet dry before you're done Going to Bolivia, they needed a character called Alejandro Sosa in Cochabamba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenacious_b Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 went to see it the other night after my wife nodded off. I thought it was every bit as good if not better than CR. Just because a plot is simple does not mean it's weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.