Quantum of Solace

[GeneChing]

The new Bond film trailer (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2222933/New-James-Bond-film-trailer-released.html) is out. I wonder if it'll showcase more parkour (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44016)...

[doug maverick]

just heard it the quantum solice song featuring alicia keys and jack white. excellent just thought i'd let you guys know.

[GeneChing]

It's kind of retro (http://www.myspace.com/aliciakeys), which works for Bond, but still doesn't hold a candle to McCartney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZdt3AL8aK8&feature=related) or Her Majesty herself, Shirley Bassey. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Wg6k9cWhM&feature=related)

[doug maverick]

wow nobody has talked about this yet i'm surprised. ok this movie good but not even close to casino royale and was more bourne then bond. it just didn't do it for me, not one bit. it didn't have the finesse that is a bond film. it was obviously a producers film i mean with the running time at 90 minutes i mean come on. the storyline wasn't really fleshed out and it just felt like a porn in that the story just served as breif interruptions between action sequences. this was a rush job and it shows. i mean the acting and action was all fine and dandy its watchable even enjoyable but something was missing and whatever it was just turned me off to this installement. they need to bring back martin campbell.

[SoCo KungFu]

I thought it was kick ass.

The opening was better than him chasing down a giant kenyan. Which I was worried with how they would beat that intro.

The plot was fine in my opinion. I guess if you hadn't seen CR then you'd not know what was going on. But it tied up the whole mess with Vesper and still has all the stuff normal to Bond like the evil diabolical villain fronting as a savior to the world while secretly plotting their own way at strangling it for power.

If anything was missing....its the gadgets. There were not missile launchers in headlights, no laser watches, no explosive bubble gum.

Which to me is fine too. To be honest I like the seriousness the new bonds are taking.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wait till you see the sequel to this one...

[nolte13]

I thought QoS was really good. You're right that it wasn't nearly as great as Casino Royale, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The stroyline wasn't as emphasized in this installment as much as the developement of Bond's character. Craig's subtlety is extremely powerful, especially in this flick. I thought he did a wonderful job putting forth Bond's humanity and the realization that his actions effect all the people around him.

It really was a continution, almost like an appendix to Casino Royale...but I still found it hard to not have a great time watching it.

Plus I think Olga Kurylenko is hands down my favorite Bond girl ever. I don't know if I was as amazed by her acting ability as much as I was by her stunning beauty. But alas, I truly am a sucker for a pretty face (and amazing body).

I know alot of people who said they were hugely disappointed by the movie, but I still enjoyed it. I really like the more realistic and incredibly cold Bond as compared to the others (take THAT Pierce Brosnan!).

Daniel Craig is gold.

And Olga should be the bearer of my children.

[SimonM]

Watching it tonight or tomorrow.

[doug maverick]

i didn't say the movie was bad, it was good i saw it twice in fact. i'm just saying it felt overly produced hell it was even shortend to 90 minutes why well yo add more screenings ofcourse. i think the next installment they need to go back to what they were working on with casino royale.

[Jimbo]

It wasn't a bad film, but as mentioned, nowhere near Casino Royale. I have to say I was a bit disappointed. It seemed like everything was set up to have Bond get into lots of hand-to-hand fights. That's fine sometimes in a 007 movie, just not the whole movie.

I will say that Daniel Craig is my favorite James Bond, only not in this movie. I like his no-nonsense coldness...he truly lives up to "Licensed to Kill". I even like his Bond better than Sean Connery's (my now second-favorite), because Craig has far superior athletic coordination, thus making him more convincing in physical confrontations.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It wasn't a bad film, but as mentioned, nowhere near Casino Royale. I have to say I was a bit disappointed. It seemed like everything was set up to have Bond get into lots of hand-to-hand fights. That's fine sometimes in a 007 movie, just not the whole movie.

I will say that Daniel Craig is my favorite James Bond, only not in this movie. I like his no-nonsense coldness...he truly lives up to "Licensed to Kill". I even like his Bond better than Sean Connery's (my now second-favorite), because Craig has far superior athletic coordination, thus making him more convincing in physical confrontations.

You know...that was kind of the point of the whole movie, to showcase Bond's "transformation" into a "killing machine" and to give Bourne a "run for his money: too.

[iron_silk]

I wasn't a big fan of Casino Royale. The big fights lasted way too long and the "story line" and dialogue was pretty poorly put together.

I mean I thought the actors were great and did the best with what they got but it was really forced and ended with M explaining it away in a paragraph. Excellent.

on the other hand I will be watching QOS...all my friends want to and I hate to be left out.

[Jimbo]

Sanjuro Ronin:

But I thought they already established that in Casino Royale. Like I said, there is a place for hand-to-hand, but when there's too many scenes like that in a 007 movie it can tend to lessen the impact of each fight. The knife fight in the hotel room and the elevator fight are examples of excellent scenes at just about the right length.

Maybe there were not as many fights as I thought; but at first viewing that was my impression. Just my .02.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sanjuro Ronin:

But I thought they already established that in Casino Royale. Like I said, there is a place for hand-to-hand, but when there's too many scenes like that in a 007 movie it can tend to lessen the impact of each fight. The knife fight in the hotel room and the elevator fight are examples of excellent scenes at just about the right length.

Maybe there were not as many fights as I thought; but at first viewing that was my impression. Just my .02.

They began to establish that in CR, they expanded on it, considerably, in QOS.
This movie was just about one thing and one thing only:
Plot wise - Revenge
Movie wise - make it clear that there is NOTHINg this "new" JB can't handle and that he doesn't need gadgets.

[SimonM]

Fleming's books were NOT gadget heavy (at least the ones I have read).

As such I am very glad to see the movie franchise moving away from gizmos and towards the man I think Fleming envisioned: a tough, brutal, intelligent and dangerous thug.

[GeneChing]

It didn't live up the Casino, but it's easily the next best Bond flick in the last decade (and I only say that because of Michelle in Tomorrow - I'd have to go back to Never say never for another Bond I enjoyed as much and that was a whopping quarter century ago). It was very entertaining. The cinematography was too frenetic, which, like Bourne, was a shame since the choreography and stunts were there. I wish I saw Casino just before it because I didn't really remember all the carry-over characters. I'm finally warming up to Dench as M. I still enjoy Craig as Bond; he still lives up to the promise he showed in Layer Cake.

As for the complaints on the weird title, they'll get more complaints about Risico and The Hildebrand Rarity. The Property of a Lady could work. 007 in New York seems lame too. Then I think they're done unless they move to the non-Fleming works. The complainers should really read the original Fleming books - in order no less. The books are tremendous, better than the movies in many ways.

[doug maverick]

sounds like a bad horror movie. whoever came up with that weak ass title should die the slow way(have all ur flesh peeled of bit by bit). i agree about the camera and it may be do to the fact that it was the same action director from the last two bourne films. when will they learn that fans hate hate hate hate hate that ****. if i ever see his big fat ass again(dan bradley the second unit director of quatum and the last two bourne films) im gonna shake him and ask him does he like it. anyway i hear the next film is suppose to be more sexed up. idk about it being shot in new york maybe maybe not.i like when its shot in more luxurious location like monte negro in casino. but im sure itll be fine in ny.but nee york is more dectective and mobster then spy movie. to me anyway.

[GeneChing]

Fleming wrote two short story collections on Bond. For Your Eyes Only contained From a View to a Kill, For Your Eyes Only, Quantum of Solace, Risico and The Hildebrand Rarity. Octo***** and The Living Daylights contained Octo*****, The Living Daylights, The Property of a Lady and 007 in New York. You've got to keep in mind that the books, while parallel to the movies, are quite different. The names are changed all around and the plots seldom map on the stories anymore. For example in the books (and this is a spoiler) Bond gets brainwashed into an assassination attempt on M.

[TenTigers]

spoiler-anyone else notice the homage to Goldfinger-almost identical position as well.

[GeneChing]

I'm still debating whether that worked for me. Halle Berry's homage to Ursula Andress worked, but I'm not sure that one did.

[TenTigers]

I'm still debating whether that worked for me. Halle Berry's homage to Ursula Andress worked, but I'm not sure that one did.
oh yeah,forgot about that one! Bikini and knife strapped to her waist.
Now I have to see it again and look for more. This is like "Where's Waldo":D

[doug maverick]

i actually liked the oil bit. it was pretty good and i liked how.....forget it thats to big a spoiler.but for those who seen it you know what im talking about the walk of shame in the desert and what bond gave him.

[SimonM]

The books are tremendous, better than the movies in many ways.

True.

And what I like about Craig is that he is more simmilar to the bond of the books than any of his predecessors.

Which is why Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan and especially Timothy Dalton suck. ;)

[TenTigers]

I would love to see remakes of the Bond movies that were ruined by Roger Moore.
And who can forgive them for George Lazenby's forgettable performance in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service?" pure shlock.
Way too much cheap gags-the Southern Cop, "Jaws," ridiculous chase scenes, and hokey weaponry from Q Branch.
Compare them to "Dr. No," and "From Russia with Love."

[SimonM]

Hear hear.

[GeneChing]

They should really just go back and do the books. The Bond films basically got caught up in Thunderball plot (evil villain steals something that's very destructive) and never got out of it. But the books, ahh, there's this amazing progression of the Bond character from naive to an alcoholic burnt out wounded warrior. It's brilliant, and Craig has potential to see those life changes through. In the books, Blofeld is drawn much more vibrantly - his garden of death in You Only Live Twice (book) was high poetry, showing Fleming at the top of his game as a pulp fiction writer. Fleming was involved with British Naval Intelligence in real life, and the Bond books illustrate his inside knowledge of espionage at that time, along with keen portrayals of Jamaica and other locales.

I'm now curious - who here has read them (aside from SimonM)? Extra credit if you've read the lost Bond book (and Bond film) Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Of course, you'd really need to be in Bondage to understand all the levels of that reference.

I've always been a fan of Connery. I felt for Lazenby because On Her Majesty's Secret Service was actually a pivotal moment in the books (the death of Bond's bride) and he had to be bested by Kojak. I hated Moore but loved Live and Let Die - in fact it's one of my fav Bond flicks of all. I liked Dalton because he replaced Moore. I thought Brosnan was really weird since he started on TV doing a caricature of Bond in Remington Steele.

[Judge Pen]

Although I'll always have a soft spot for Connery, Craig is my favorite Bond now. His intensity and subtlety is startling and he is closer to the idea of Bond as developed by Fleming. I like that Craig does not play bond as a caricature.

This movie was essentially a subtle remake of Dr. No in my opinion. Bond's involvement in this mission is more personally involved then Bond in Dr. No, but in both movies, Bond stumbles upon a previously unknown organization (SPECTRE vs QUANTIUM). In both movies, he is aided by a beautiful woman seeking revenge and neither of them realize how far reaching their actions actually are. I hope this re-boot continues and the next movie is about QUANTIUM seeking revenge against Bond personally al la From Russian With Love.

[Judge Pen]

They should really just go back and do the books. The Bond films basically got caught up in Thunderball plot (evil villain steals something that's very destructive) and never got out of it. But the books, ahh, there's this amazing progression of the Bond character from naive to an alcoholic burnt out wounded warrior. It's brilliant, and Craig has potential to see those life changes through. In the books, Blofeld is drawn much more vibrantly - his garden of death in You Only Live Twice (book) was high poetry, showing Fleming at the top of his game as a pulp fiction writer. Fleming was involved with British Naval Intelligence in real life, and the Bond books illustrate his inside knowledge of espionage at that time, along with keen portrayals of Jamaica and other locales.

I'm now curious - who here has read them (aside from SimonM)? Extra credit if you've read the lost Bond book (and Bond film) Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Of course, you'd really need to be in Bondage to understand all the levels of that reference.

I've always been a fan of Connery. I felt for Lazenby because On Her Majesty's Secret Service was actually a pivotal moment in the books (the death of Bond's bride) and he had to be bested by Kojak. I hated Moore but loved Live and Let Die - in fact it's one of my fav Bond flicks of all. I liked Dalton because he replaced Moore. I thought Brosnan was really weird since he started on TV doing a caricature of Bond in Remington Steele.

I don't have the depth of knowledge of the books. I read On Her Majesty's Secret Service and that is still my favorite Bond movie because of the humanity of the Bond character (if only Connery had played that Bond instead of Lazenby).

I agree with you on Moore, but I thought For Your Eyes Only was Moore's best. I liked Dalton in Licensed to Kill but he was wrong for Bond at that time.

I agree with you, I hope they use Craig and build upon Bond in a way that hasn't been done in the movies.

[SimonM]

I'm now curious - who here has read them (aside from SimonM)? Extra credit if you've read the lost Bond book (and Bond film) Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Of course, you'd really need to be in Bondage to understand all the levels of that reference.

I watched the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang movie when I was a kid but I haven't read the book.

And On Her Magisty's Secret Service remains my favorite book. That, combined with Casino Royale really provides perspective to Bond's relationship with women.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Dalton NEVER carried the physical part, neither did Moore.
Connery sold that part.
Bronson carried it because of his style and the fight scene in Goldeneye was quite good.
Craig is on a whole other level,
he not only carries the role physically, but his persona and mannerisim makes you think he can handle anything that comes his way.
Truly he is the Bond that "every man wants to be and women wanna be with".
The intensity in his eyes shows that he IS Bond during filming.
He is a great actor, no doubt.

[SimonM]

I have not yet read you only live twice... but I want to.

[Judge Pen]

Dalton NEVER carried the physical part, neither did Moore.
Connery sold that part.
Bronson carried it because of his style and the fight scene in Goldeneye was quite good.
Craig is on a whole other level,
he not only carries the role physically, but his persona and mannerisim makes you think he can handle anything that comes his way.
Truly he is the Bond that "every man wants to be and women wanna be with".
The intensity in his eyes shows that he IS Bond during filming.
He is a great actor, no doubt.

I bought Dalton's physicality 1000 times more than Moore's

[SimonM]

SR: I think Connery managed to communicate James Bond effectively; at times. Daniel Craig has yet to establish that track record although he is currently sitting at #2 in my ratings. I consider Roger Moore to be the worst of the bunch for precisely the reasons you stated.

Fleming's Bond repeatedly nearly died.

Look at Moore in "The Man With The Golden Gun"

Scaramanga sets up his little game...

And Bond beats him at it with one shot without even breaking a sweat... that creepy midget gives him more trouble.

[Judge Pen]

Connery did display vulnerability early on in the movies, but by You Only Live Twice, it was practically non-existent. One of my favorite Connery moments was in Goldfinger: The look on his face when oddjob crushes the golf ball is excellent and subtle. I wish there were more of those types of moments with Connery's Bond.

[SimonM]

See that's why I'm still holding out as Connery as the best bond. If he manages to produce two more movies as good as the last two than I'd say he has eclipsed Connery.

But now it's a question of stamina rather than just raw talent.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I bought Dalton's physicality 1000 times more than Moore's

LOL, that is a given !
:D

[TenTigers]

huh-huh...Lazenby wore a skirt.

I saw the movie, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang-I can't see Di(k Van Dyke as Bond.:p

didn't Flemming write Kiss Kiss Bang Bang? or was that simply a song on one of the earlier Bond movies?

They promised Dalton would be more like the Flemming Bond but they lied.
THEY LIED!!

[SimonM]

Fleming wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!

[GeneChing]

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was not only written by Fleming, the film was produced by Cubby Broccoli, who also did Bond. Broccoli's family was the first to import Broccoli to America, believe it or not. That was the foundation of the fortune that banked Bond. CCBB is filled with Connery-Bond-period sensibilities, and not only with the gadget-ridden car, but also the expansive cinematography that really took advantage of the panoramic screen. What's more, the junk dealer that sells CCBB to Dyke is none other than M. Want more? The villain is none other than Goldfinger.

P.S. If you read the books, you absolutely must read them in order. It's a very linear progression until the end with the short stories. The short stories fall out of the timeline.

[TenTigers]

ahhh...found it.

The original main title theme to Thunderball was entitled "Mr. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang," which was written by John Barry and Leslie Bricusse. The title was taken from an Italian journalist who in 1962 dubbed agent 007 as Mr. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. Barry had thought he couldn't write a song about a vague "Thunderball" term or the story of the film, so his song was a description of the character of James Bond.[1]

The song was originally recorded by Shirley Bassey, but was later rerecorded by Dionne Warwick. Both version were not released until the 1990s. The song was removed from the title credits after producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman were worried that a theme song to a James Bond movie would not work well if the song did not have the title of the film in its lyrics. John Barry teamed up with lyricist Don Black and wrote "Thunderball" which was sung by Tom Jones who, according to Bond production legend, fainted in the recording booth when singing the song's final, high note. Jones said of the final note, "I closed my eyes and I held the note for so long when I opened my eyes the room was spinning." [2] Like "Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", the lyrics of "Thunderball" are a description of Bond's character.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oREmbGD84Kw

they actually use it in the movie-but as an instrumental during some of the scenes.
I had the album when I was a kid (about 11 yrs old or so), so it stuck in my head.

[TenTigers]

a side note-I used to see John Barry every week. He was a very nice guy-David Niven type. I taught his son privately.
Nice house. Nice area. Private community on Center Island. They have their own police force. Got a speeding ticket for doing 33 mph in a 30.:(

[SimonM]

I have not read all the books nor have I read them in order. But I would like to. :D

Lately my reading has been wierd and sporadic. I've been researching for a book that I've been writing (should break 30000 words tonight!) and most of my reading has been related to that.

I now know much more about both the quantum theory of gravitation and tarot cards than I ever thought I would want to. ;)

Note for non authors: The average novel is approx. 100,000 words. For sake of comparison the average magazine article is roughly 1500-2500 words. It's easy to write 1500 words in a sitting. What is hard is to do that sitting every day.... that is VERY hard. When you are trying to maintain a cohesive narrative it's even harder. I'd love to write professionally but I fear that if I ever do realize this dream I will have to work much harder than I do right now with my desk job. For an example of what I mean consider Terry Pratchett. He is one of the most successful living fiction authors. He has written approximately 50 books of novel or novella length (or approx. three to five million words) in the last 30 years. :D