Hope they continue with the same feel as the last two. I have loved them and can't wait to see this one.
Agreed.
Everybody gives Quantum of Solace crap, but it works much better if you watch it right after Casino Royale. It was essentially a two hour epilogue.
The only thing I hope they move away from is the Bourne "shakey cam" aspect. I think you can capture an authentic feel if you pull back with a steady cam and let loose with the choreography. The DP and the Director need to watch From Russia With Love.
Hope they continue with the same feel as the last two. I have loved them and can't wait to see this one.
I do agree that they need to continue on the same feel, but at the same time they need to introduce a little bit more fun, and hopefully some gadgets. Obviously CR and QoS went right back to the beginning so there was no Q or no gadgets, but I now hope they start to implement these things, without obviously going over the top like in the latter Brosnan films.
I so want this movie to be amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13
Agreed.
Everybody gives Quantum of Solace crap, but it works much better if you watch it right after Casino Royale. It was essentially a two hour epilogue.
Agreed. On first viewing, thought QoS was rather week, but now I’ve seen it a million times, I really appreciate it. It’s definitely not a classic Bond, but it’s better than the reputation it receives. My major complaint is that it was rather short, too short, even despite the fact it was virtually a direct continuation of CS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13
The only thing I hope they move away from is the Bourne "shakey cam" aspect. I think you can capture an authentic feel if you pull back with a steady cam and let loose with the choreography. The DP and the Director need to watch From Russia With Love.
Or they could watch OHMSS and go with the extreme close-ups and weird angles for fighting scenes.
At least two of those movies rank up there with the worst films ever made. He was a terrible James Bond and those films made a complete mockery out of everything Ian Flemming ever wrote and everything Albert Broccoli had accomplished with the early Connery films.
At worst Quantum was a mediocre ought era action film.
Casino Royale was a good Bond movie with some really bad editing. Way to much clip-clip-clip from scene to scene editing that really hurt the flow. In particular, it got especially bad after the poker game ended. Reminded me of watching LOTR: Return of the King with its obnoxious half-dozen false endings.
Quantum of Solace was a mediocre Bond movie but a pretty good 2000s action movie. Too much Michael Bay/McG style shaky cam and "cameras circling the action 360 degrees with every cut being two seconds" filming.
At least two of those movies rank up there with the worst films ever made. He was a terrible James Bond and those films made a complete mockery out of everything Ian Flemming ever wrote and everything Albert Broccoli had accomplished with the early Connery films.
He isn't the best Bond that's for sure but neither is Daniel Craig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13
At worst Quantum was a mediocre ought era action film.
Bond movies are usually better than average action films. If this was a mediocre action film, then it's definitely one of the worst Bonds.
Casino Royale was a good Bond movie with some really bad editing. Way to much clip-clip-clip from scene to scene editing that really hurt the flow. In particular, it got especially bad after the poker game ended. Reminded me of watching LOTR: Return of the King with its obnoxious half-dozen false endings.
Quantum of Solace was a mediocre Bond movie but a pretty good 2000s action movie. Too much Michael Bay/McG style shaky cam and "cameras circling the action 360 degrees with every cut being two seconds" filming.
Agree with this post 100%. Casino Royale just dragged after the poker game. I'm not a huge fan of Quantum either.
And say what you want about Roger Moore, for every Moonraker there was a Spy Who Loved Me or For Your Eyes Only. Doesn't deserve he bum rap he's getting in this thread.
I don't understand the crap people give the first two movies either. (of this series)
Quantum was a solid action flick and Casino Royale was a good story with good action scenes. Both had their ups and downs but neither is close to the worst bond ever. Anyone saying that simply hasn't seen the old school ones (some of them are pretty bad) or simply overrates the Brosnan bond flicks. The only one of those even good was Goldeneye. How people will try and say flicks like Tomorrow Never Dies >>>> Quantum/Casino I'll never understand. Those movies were campy crap.
Casino Royale was okay. Not great, nowhere near any of Connery's or the best of Moore or Goldeneye, but above-average. It lacked a compelling villain and just substituted an all-purpose bad guy instead of a foil/complement for Bond's character and charisma. The poker angle was clearly an attempt to latch on to the hype generated by late night ESPN broadcasts and it showed, painfully. But the biggest problem was that there were no parts of the film that required Bond to use his wits to escape or prevail (except maybe the runway scene) and we got the idea that Daniel Craig can only overcome adversity by shooting or beating the living hell out of it.
Quantum of Solace was just too uninteresting. The threat he has to combat is Uruguay (or whatever country it was) water loss? Whose idea was that?
I hope this film will be better, it certainly has the cast for it, but I've been disappointed by Bond flicks for the pasts decade and a half
I'm not really a Bondophile or whatever it might be called. Never read any of the books, only seen like 3 or 4 of the films...
Are all the films supposed to be in the same universe and all the different Bonds are still playing the same guy? Or is each new character like a re-boot of the overall franchise and all are just randomly based off of different stories from the books?
I'm not really a Bondophile or whatever it might be called. Never read any of the books, only seen like 3 or 4 of the films...
Are all the films supposed to be in the same universe and all the different Bonds are still playing the same guy? Or is each new character like a re-boot of the overall franchise and all are just randomly based off of different stories from the books?
Craig's first appearance in Casino Royale is definitely a reboot, as he's technically not even a 00 agent when the film starts.
The others, it's debatable.....certainly Bond fans such as myself have had long arguments with other fans about it.....but there have been references to events in previous films that other actors were playing Bond in later films.
