What is Digg?231 Comments
- Saitekc, on 11/18/2008, -55/+166Wrong, it was great. This guy just doesn't like change.
- Bic823, on 11/19/2008, -3/+45Definitely liked Casino Royale better, this one felt more like a Bourne ripoff, what with the chase scenes and the shaky camera. It got pretty bad at some points, particularly the on-foot chases and fistfights.
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -9/+39Regardless of how good the most recent James Bond movies were, nonetheless, they were highly needed. Like Star Wars Episode 1-3, the story line had to have a root of some sort. James bond didn't become what he is known to be, like what he is portrayed in the last 20 or so James bond movies out of the blue...or did he? Well these last two movies have established the stage for what should have been accomplished nearly half a decade ago with the initial James bond movies.
I am happy with the last two movies because they set the tone for what is to come, James bond with a sh*t load of gadgets and even deeper story lines. - KaiserArny, on 11/18/2008, -13/+43I personally liked the movie, but was it a Bond film? If you make Superman movie and decide he will not fly anymore, he's going to swim. He won't have a blue suit but a yellow and green. Is it still Superman?
Quantum of Solace is a good action movie, except for that first car chase that could give some people a seizure, but there's so many changes that you forget your watching James Bond. - Centorio, on 11/18/2008, -21/+48Honestly, I loved this movie, I thought it was SLIGHTLY better than Casino Royal. I think the reason people are hating on it is the lack of Bond'isms (if that's even a word). No "Bond, James Bond" No "Shaken, not stirred" and no Money Penny or Q. I saw past all that because it feels like they rebooted the series in attempt to start making each sequel linked. Eventually Bond will start using his 'isms.
- Pacotheparrot, on 11/19/2008, -4/+29While I enjoyed it, I feel the reviewer's critiques hit the nail on the head. It was a good movie but it needed more time for "Bond to be Bond". I think that's what made Casino Royale so great, the action scenes were short and intense (with the exception of the airport sequence but that was more suspense anyway) which allowed Craig to flesh out the character and give him some...well character. I hope the next one gets a new director and goes back to the Casino Royale model.
- SpanishMongoose, on 03/02/2009, -32/+55Money speaks louder then words, Mr. West. This movie has done very well in box office sales especially with a fall release. Now please Mr. West drink some motor oil before you embarrass yourself some more.
- kashk5, on 11/19/2008, -3/+20When I first heard he was going to be Bond when Casino Royale was announced, I wasn't that enthused either. Then I saw the movie and I think he's actually pretty good. Plus, the way Craig plays Bond is more in line with Iam Fleming's novels.
- kp2575, on 11/18/2008, -6/+21I thought it was one of the better action movies I have seen in a long time. The scaffold fight was really entertaining.
- kinseyincanada, on 11/19/2008, -2/+15im sorry but money does not always equal a great movie, although Quamtum was great, byt before it High School Musical 3 was number one.
- Lunarbunny, on 11/19/2008, -3/+16Because metal doesn't magically not need lubricant when the fuel is changed.
- c010rb1indusa, on 11/19/2008, -5/+18I agree, plus you have to look at it from a 3 movie perspective. The Plot can get a little foggy if you're unfamiliar with the first film I will admit to that, but what the second movie has done is left the door open for a 3rd movie that has a lot of potential. Unfortunately, this movie will probably be overshadowed by Casino Royale, and the upcoming 3rd film, unlike the original Star Wars trilogy in which the second film outshines the other two. It will be more like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy where Towers is easily forgettable when compared to Fellowship and Return of the King. Can't wait for the next bond...
- AmericanParty, on 11/19/2008, -3/+15It's as classy as your name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
That should help. - GeorgeStone2, on 11/19/2008, -1/+13The bad dude sold water. It's so tame.
What happened to blowing up the world?
He's basically just the CEO of Evian water. - techlyc, on 11/19/2008, -1/+13 >> he's going to swim. He won't have a blue suit but a yellow and green
AQUAMAN!!! :D - maliath, on 11/19/2008, -4/+15Casino Royale was clever and unexpected. This Bond movie was the same hashed out action scenes with predictable results we've seen from other thriller movies (see: Bourne Ultimatum). By the end, I didn't care how the goon died or if Bond got his revenge.
- MrFisty, on 11/19/2008, -1/+11No, Mr West, I don't expect you to like it... I expect you to die!
- jmpeagle, on 11/19/2008, -1/+11i don't think they she have switched directors...what was with the whole shaky cam during the action scenes. I loved the action scenes in Casino Royale, but they had nice crisp steady cams.
- SyntraFTW, on 11/19/2008, -13/+22Buried as inaccurate.
- kinseyincanada, on 11/19/2008, -5/+14Quantum of Solace was not a great Bond movie, it was a great Action movie.
- cypher35, on 11/19/2008, -3/+12Disagree.
I didn't need to know Anakin Skywalker was a whiny little kid or that the force is controlled by Midichlorians in order to appreciate the original star wars trilogy...
That said, I liked Casino Royale. I didn't really like QoS as much, but it still beat the ***** out of the later Pierce Brosnan efforts, so I'm still on board. - maximilen, on 11/19/2008, -4/+12Bond is pissed off.. A genuinley angry, betrayed and vengance-seeking powerfull spy/killer would act exactly the same as bond did in this flick. THAT's why the movie felt "Bournish." Bond was all business, but should settle nicely back into his Bond-isms in future films. :)
- fungke, on 11/19/2008, -0/+7Some of the editing in places was enough to turn anyone epileptic!
It's a shame because some of the sequences, which obviously took a lot of time and effort from the stunt people, were missed because of the 'child-on-caffeine' editor. - DonCreech, on 11/19/2008, -1/+8Since this film has a good chance of becoming the top grossing Bond installation in the series, we're probably witnessing the end of an era for the old formula. Personally, I have mixed feelings about that, but then again, I'm not the head of a movie studio.
- LacY, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6I liked the movie a lot, but I do agree that there's not really anything that makes it a "Bond" movie. The stereotypical Bond things weren't there (Q, "Bond, James Bond", "shaken not stirred", the over-the-top one-liners, etc). It was basically any other "secret agent" movie, but he happens to have the name James Bond. That said, I still really enjoyed the movie.
- poorbusker, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6More then one person walked out of my theater during this movie. Just saying...
Also, the action was cut like an MTV music video. And yes, I did just use MTV and music in the same sentence. - Billions, on 11/19/2008, -2/+8"So many changes, " you say? I think it was TOTALLY James Bond: traveling the world, swooning the ladies, thinking on his feet and kicking ass, with some great driving. Little reliance on the gadgets, I really enjoyed it.
You know what you might enjoy more if you thought it wasn't "Bond" enough? Dark Knight, now THAT thought it was a James Bond film - from 15 years ago, when they would have tried to make us believe that Timothy Dalton could spot enemies using a cellular phone's microphone.
Nossir, this new Bond film has a believability streak that strains the suspension of disbelief FAR less than those before it, and I like Craig's cold Fleming Bond from the pages of the novels.
For discussion: While Bond is speaking to Mateas, did I pick up a hint in the new Bond film canon that agents use cover names, like 'James Bond' is a cover name for whoever is MI6's baddest ***** in any given decade? A slight nod, I think, to the fact we've been watching an agent named 'Bond' perpetually pull a Dorian Gray on us since 1962. Eh, maybe that's just me looking for more believability. - bitweever, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6The last two movies have been much closer to the original books, where Bond is not a gadgeted-up super-suave spy, he's a merciless killer. He's a dangerous character.
You say the last two movies weren't Bond. I say the previous 18 (or however many there were) were not Bond. - snappleman21, on 11/19/2008, -1/+7What are you guys talking about?
This movie IS Bond. You have to realize, that this is a different agent. Bond, James Bond. 007. They're one and the same, a name.
Daniel Craig is the new Bond. He's smooth, composed, and less of a pansy (imho). An edgier bond, with a purpose, is much more entertaining.
You can't come on here and say he's not Bond. All he needed to get in her pants was a cheesy line about the stationary.
He charmed the pants off the girl at the airport when he was blacklisted. - h4ppydotcom, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5It was a good scene, but what is with cutting to a new angle twice a second? Same with the first car chase...
I think that the scaffolding scene would have looked amazing with a single camera, panning and zooming as they decended the tower, with an occasional cut to a detail shot (to cover up the joins when they needed to do a reset/retake). Of course, if they could film it all in one take then you'd *really* be on to something that looks (and is) amazing! - jeffkee, on 11/19/2008, -1/+6The "Shaken, not stirred" line was said by the guy in the plane, when Mathis and Bond was in it. So it was, in a way, said. Although Bond did not say it.
I liked the movie overall, but I'm in line with people who miss the classic Bond characteristics. The lack of the "Bond, James Bond" was a loss. It is a long running franchise after all, and it's not Pirates of the Carribean. - FearlessFreep, on 11/19/2008, -1/+6"a more sophisticated and mature audience "
20 years for now, someone's going to be laughing at your idea today of "a sophisticated and mature audience" Tastes change, but they don't really improve (or get worse),they're just different. to think otherwise is just naive arrogance - Eslamicolt3, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5I totally agree, except that Casino Royale did a great job of showing us this unrefined Bond that will grow into those things, while still being the hardened bad ass that Craig brings to the table. But as much fun as I had with Quantum, I felt like we regressed in character development. The balance of action and drama was perfectly walked in Casino, making the few chase scenes more poignant. I have full confidence that the next one will be back on track. Hopefully they scrap the shaky, quick cut editing and go back to what made Casino Royale such an outstanding film.
- bushisadumbass, on 11/19/2008, -3/+8The thing that I hated the most was the main villain, Dominic Greene. He seemed like he was just worthless and did not look tough at all.
I liked the action sequences and the Bond girl Olga K. She is very pretty ;D - korvan504521, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4Why do some people always need the backstory explained. Does Han Solo need a two hour movie intro so you can understand his motivations? Or can he just be Han Solo and be awesome.
As Lucas showed, Prequels are often a damn bad idea, and sometimes jumping into the middle of a story is best, because the mystery is half the fun. - Kaptainswanky, on 11/19/2008, -4/+8Perhaps it could just be that the new direction these films have taken are for a more sophisticated and mature audience who don't need to see "futuristic" gadgets that will be obsolete in a few years, or tacky pickup lines. As for comic relief, I found plenty in both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, it's just a bit more underlying, rather than over the top.
Oh and National Treasure doesn't have anything on Indy. - inactive, on 11/19/2008, -4/+8There were too many action sequences not enough spy film and figuring out. and Bourne Franchise to me replace James Bond as the goto Secret agent film for the last decade, and the realistic plotline was cool just doesn't fit in the Bond mode,When I go to see a Bond film I should expect over the top,I didn't get that.
- Katana, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6The reason a lot of stuff is missing because casino royale was set before Dr No, so bond is a young inexperienced 00 agent, he only just got the 007 title at the start of casino royale, quite a lot of people seem to forget all this and then feel disapointed when it's missing. I imagine you'll see more of it in the next film though.
I watched all the bond films in the last 2 weeks and i have to say that quantum of solace was an excellent bond film when compared to all the others, maybe a bit too much action and explosions than previous ones but great nonetheless. - crossmr, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4if you're mentally retarded and just had been kicked in the head by a horse yes..yes its a great question.
Have you just been kicked in the head Grin23? - bigfreakinlion, on 11/19/2008, -7/+11Really, was anyone actually genuinely scared of the movie's villain or his wigged gay counterpart? I spent the entire time sitting there thinking "this is a guy I could probably take in a fight". Then he picks up that ax and starts screaming like a girl every time he swings it. Just lame.
- Centorio, on 11/18/2008, -7/+11That's not a fair comparison. It's more like Spiderman 1. Half of the movie he is just Peter Parker. He starts learning his ability and becoming what we know as Spiderman.
- h4ppydotcom, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4I always thought that "Bond" was the cover-name for whoever was MI6's current 007, and that they had a small number of double-0s floating around.
- FyberOptic, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4James Bond stopped being James Bond sometime during Brosnan's stint. GoldenEye was the last one that really had any sort of traditional feel to it. After that they just got too heavy on action and shorter on plot with each one.
But that's the price you pay when you focus on nothing but profits, directing it towards the lowest common denominator of people who can't sit through five minutes of story development before they get distracted by a shiny object or start answering their telephones in the theater. - lpoql, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4Disappointed. I saw an early screening and everyone was jacked up and cheering as it started. By the end people kind of shuffled out wondering what the crap was that?
Pros
1. Craig is doing a great Job so far as Bond, very believable. Now if they would only give him more opportunities to be Bond and not Jason Bourne.
2. The sound at the theater I watched it at was top notch, The bass kicked in hard during the car chases and shootouts, I could feel the car slamming into the walls and oncoming traffic and the bullets ripping through my chair, very cool
3. QoS portrayed at times a darker, more personal side to Bond. Not the usual invincible swaggering slick witted bond, but an anguished, fallible, vulnerable bond struggling to do the right thing.
Cons
1. I'm actually a fan of the shaky cam look, when done right and in moderation. But this film looked like someone handed a camera to a schizophrenic monkey with a string of firecrackers taped to its tail. Half the time it was an incomprehensible blur the other half we're looking at someones ankle, who knows, or the back of someones ear. The fight scenes were impossible to follow and the editing cuts could give you a seizure. When the dust settles and the camera is wrestled away from the monkey we see our hero is somehow alive though we could have sworn that blur shot him first, but that blur was actually him shooting the bad guy blur. I'm looking at you scaffolding fight. Although to their credit that falling through the glass shot was amazing. That whole fight choreography was incredible too, if only there was a steady cam on set to capture it and allow us to enjoy it.
.
2.Not much classic Bond wit or smooth talking the ladies.
3. No Q or gadgets besides another rehashed minority report touch table probably sponsored by Microsoft's Surface. The Segway of touch technology,
4. Speaking of product placement, get your Sony Erickson super spy phone camera and go after shadowy villains just like Bond!
5. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME storyline, completely pointless. Not that Bond movies are that deep, but come on this one had no point whatsoever. He goes on a rampage and resolves nothing by the end.
6. Almost every single character was useless forgettable and unnecessary. No super villains just weak sniveling "mini bosses" with pathetic world domination plans, ahem, I mean middle of the freaking Bolivian desert domination plans..Which they of course fail at. If you can't take over a barren desert you pretty much suck as a villain and should go back to petty crimes or politics.
7.The use of automatic weapons to protect your explosive hydrogen fortress.Brilliant.
8. ***Spoiler*** The end scene. The moment we're all waiting for "We have some unfinished business" and then they leave it like that, unfinished business. Thanks for that pointless hour and half waste of my life.
Punch the guy in the face, shoot him, say something that will destroy his life forever, grab his nose and and yell LIVE OR DIE?!? ANYTHING! But you just cut away and say well that takes care of that everything is back to normal.jolly good pip pip cheerio!
9. Finally the statement in bold print at the end of the credits:
"James Bond will return!"
Whaa ?!? There's a shocker. For a second there I wasn't sure the longest running franchise in movie history was going to make another installment. I don't know maybe it was an apology? We're sorry this movie really blew, but don't worry Bond will be back we promise! Well that's good news, maybe they'll get it right next time.
Quantum of Solace = Not great, just ok. - AmericanParty, on 11/19/2008, -16/+20***** you
- GDOG5, on 11/19/2008, -1/+5I liked Daniel Craig, i liked the new realism and grit the movie has to it (in comparison to Die Another day where the evil man who never sleeps wants to burn the earth with a satellite, and bond has an invisible car) i liked the immense action however it did not have the sassy bond elements we all loved. Casino Royal had it, remember the halariouse cheeky lines bond made in the torture scene when he got snapped in the balls. There was none of that in the character of bond in this movie, just bitterness and spite for his love loss. Thats what really disappointed me because this was the one thing that gave bond films the edge over everything else. This film was more like an inferior Bourne ripoff.
- maximilen, on 11/19/2008, -3/+7Bond is pissed off.. A genuinley angry, betrayed and vengance-seeking powerfull spy/killer would act exactly the same as bond did in this flick. THAT's why the movie felt "Bournish." Bond was all business, nothing more, bu should settle nicely back into his "Bondisms" after this his venting.
- n0c0ntr0l, on 11/19/2008, -4/+8It was no doubt a good movie. But it wasn't a Bond movie.
- Pairodocs, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4I felt like it was lacking development in a lot of areas... The scaffolding scene was neat as well as the whole intro/credits... but many areas such as story, characters, and cut-scenes were definitely in need of further development.... too bad I say.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 232 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is