- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,641
Agreed, well cinematography wise. Felt like a Bourn film even though everything else about it wasn't.
quantum of solace
- Thread starter Konvict
- Start date
Agreed, well cinematography wise. Felt like a Bourn film even though everything else about it wasn't.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
It was mediocre, at best. It was still a good Bond film, there are worse ones in the series, but it suffered from 3 majour problems.
1. The plot was dull and confusing, and, teasing too. They set up a future appearance for S.P.E.C.T.R.E. but didn't even mention S.P.E.C.T.R.E. after the person setting it up was killed.
2. 'James Bond' felt more like 'James Rambo.' His entire motif was 'Shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more again, ask questions never, even when it comes to friends and allies' and he rarely ever felt like Bond.
3. Some of the action sequences suffered from a pet peeve of mine, SHAKY CAM SYNDROME. I hate how directors think that they have to add a sense of urgency by throwing the camera in every direction possible, making the action on screen confusing and hard to follow. I ****ing hate Shaky Cams in action films. Its annoying and the only sense of urgency it instills is an urgency for the scene to be over and the camera to be still.
It was O.K. I'd give it a 7/10 overall. A bit disappointing, but still an adequate Bond film, when hes not busy murdering everything that isn't already dead.
1. The plot was dull and confusing, and, teasing too. They set up a future appearance for S.P.E.C.T.R.E. but didn't even mention S.P.E.C.T.R.E. after the person setting it up was killed.
2. 'James Bond' felt more like 'James Rambo.' His entire motif was 'Shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more again, ask questions never, even when it comes to friends and allies' and he rarely ever felt like Bond.
3. Some of the action sequences suffered from a pet peeve of mine, SHAKY CAM SYNDROME. I hate how directors think that they have to add a sense of urgency by throwing the camera in every direction possible, making the action on screen confusing and hard to follow. I ****ing hate Shaky Cams in action films. Its annoying and the only sense of urgency it instills is an urgency for the scene to be over and the camera to be still.
It was O.K. I'd give it a 7/10 overall. A bit disappointing, but still an adequate Bond film, when hes not busy murdering everything that isn't already dead.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 589
Im just trying to get it all together here. What I have read and heard is that as a pure action film its very good. Plot may be a little bit lacking, but it works well as an addition or continuation of what they started in casino royale. Perhaps more of a setup for future movies, sort of a transition for bond from what they recreated him to be in casino to what he is going to be?
Verdict sounds like it is still very worthwhile to see (I love casino royale, btw). So if I am completely mistaken from what I wrote above let me know, but I am still planning to see it.... and at the very latest when it comes out on dvd, heh.
Verdict sounds like it is still very worthwhile to see (I love casino royale, btw). So if I am completely mistaken from what I wrote above let me know, but I am still planning to see it.... and at the very latest when it comes out on dvd, heh.
Heh, I don't even know if you'll bother reading this far back, but here's my two cents.
Regarding all of the previous posts about how it sucked because of storyline/plot... You're missing the whole point of Bond flicks, it's all about action/sex/goofy oddities, not about having a killer storyline. If you think about it, Casino Royale and Quantum have probably the deepest continuing storyline of all the Bond films. And please... I hate saying this to you guys, but leave the amateur criticism for blogs, Myspace, or whatever other internet medium you choose. (No, I'm not trying to flame people, but it's silly trying to seem professional and standoffish like a critic when you're posting in a forum for gamers... the whole point is escaping reality, no?)
Finally, arriving at my main point. If you like Bond movies (and who doesn't?) you won't want to miss this one. It isn't fully a Bond film, like DarkElfa said, it seems like more of a Bourne film, but it's still not a bad watch, definitely worth 6-10 bucks or whatever you pay for a ticket where you live.
Regarding all of the previous posts about how it sucked because of storyline/plot... You're missing the whole point of Bond flicks, it's all about action/sex/goofy oddities, not about having a killer storyline. If you think about it, Casino Royale and Quantum have probably the deepest continuing storyline of all the Bond films. And please... I hate saying this to you guys, but leave the amateur criticism for blogs, Myspace, or whatever other internet medium you choose. (No, I'm not trying to flame people, but it's silly trying to seem professional and standoffish like a critic when you're posting in a forum for gamers... the whole point is escaping reality, no?)
Finally, arriving at my main point. If you like Bond movies (and who doesn't?) you won't want to miss this one. It isn't fully a Bond film, like DarkElfa said, it seems like more of a Bourne film, but it's still not a bad watch, definitely worth 6-10 bucks or whatever you pay for a ticket where you live.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,641
There wont be a S.P.E.C.T.R.E, but they do have a different organization called Quantum.
The painful truth is that when looking at critics, the only real different between a "Professional" one and a "Amateur" one is the professional ones either have their own website or write for a paper. It has nothing to do with their view on the film. Also if I were to ask how a film was...I would want some sort of objective review.
Last edited:
Opinions tend to be a gut level reaction or an emotional response, not a planned collection of criticisms.
But then again, that may just be my own opinion..
