James Bond: Quantum of Solace

[Blzer]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

So... can anyone sorta define the title of this movie for me? Just looks like random words to me.

[OSUG1]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

So... can anyone sorta define the title of this movie for me? Just looks like random words to me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/faq

Although the title was taken from one of the short stories in the book For Your Eyes Only , the story in the book has nothing to do with the film. In the short story, Bond is told a story by the colonial governor of Jamaica, with whom he had just had dinner. It is a brief tale about a failed relationship. The term "quantum of solace" means "a small measure of comfort amid sorrow or disappointment".

Quantum is also the name of the terrorist organization in the movie.

[SPTO]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

The theme song, "Another Way To Die," is online here.

Interesting theme song. I don't care for the vocalization. Keys sounds way out of her element in a kinda shouty/angry sounding song. That being said I really like the music. Perhaps it would've been best if they made the instrumental as the theme song and use the vocal for the end credits. Similar to OHMSS which had an instrumental theme and finished with Louie Armstrong's "We Have All The Time in the World".

[servom999]

Re: James Bond 22

Damn...This could surpass Casino Royale as greatest Bond film ever!

You know, i'm literally going to be sad when Craig is done with the Bond franchise.

co-signed!!!

[LetsGoPitt]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

Interesting theme song. I don't care for the vocalization. Keys sounds way out of her element in a kinda shouty/angry sounding song. That being said I really like the music. Perhaps it would've been best if they made the instrumental as the theme song and use the vocal for the end credits. Similar to OHMSS which had an instrumental theme and finished with Louie Armstrong's "We Have All The Time in the World".

Meh....The instrumental part of the song is so-so, but the lyrics are awful. Why they don't just let David Arnold write the theme songs is beyond me, because the ones he has done -- The k.d. lang song from Tomorrow Never Dies (end credits), The World Is Not Enough, and You Know My Name -- are infinitely better than the independent ones (Sheryl Crow, the awful Madonna song, and this one). I've never been a big fan of Alicia Keys anyway (I equate a lot of her singing to bad overacting), but I agree that she is way out of her element here.

[boomhauertjs]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

Amy Winehouse was originally supposed to do the theme song. She has the perfect voice for a Bond theme. Too bad she's a crackhead.

[Blzer]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

So... this movie has been getting pretty average reviews. That's pretty surprising to me, though I think people are considering it as more of a general action movie or more Bourne-esque than Bond-esque.

What really surprised me is I found out the run time was 106 minutes, which is a big disappointment to say the least. This movie cost $225 million? I would have expected a longer movie than this.

I'm still dying to see this, but I have a feeling that it's mostly filled with action and it's missing the appeal that Casino Royale had with its wit and charm in the dialogue (and rather clever action sequences as well). Don't get me wrong, the move is impressing... but I think people expected the quality that Casino Royale delivered as an overall package. This will probably still atop the best action movies this year, though there probably needs to be more than just action (still surprised at that 106 minutes).


We'll see.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

So... this movie has been getting pretty average reviews. That's pretty surprising to me, though I think people are considering it as more of a general action movie or more Bourne-esque than Bond-esque.

What really surprised me is I found out the run time was 106 minutes, which is a big disappointment to say the least. This movie cost $225 million? I would have expected a longer movie than this.

I'm still dying to see this, but I have a feeling that it's mostly filled with action and it's missing the appeal that Casino Royale had with its wit and charm in the dialogue (and rather clever action sequences as well). Don't get me wrong, the move is impressing... but I think people expected the quality that Casino Royale delivered as an overall package. This will probably still atop the best action movies this year, though there probably needs to be more than just action (still surprised at that 106 minutes).


We'll see.

Blzer, that is not too bad man time wise. That is 1 hr. and 46 minutes, not bad considering classics like Dr. No and Goldfinger are only a few minutes longer than QOS. Both those films are Top 5 Bond films.

[Blzer]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

Blzer, that is not too bad man time wise. That is 1 hr. and 46 minutes, not bad considering classics like Dr. No and Goldfinger are only a few minutes longer than QOS. Both those films are Top 5 Bond films.

Well I suppose that, like the reviewers, I spoiled myself with Casino Royale. I think in the end I'm just going to end up comparing it to that than any other action garbage released this year, and not praising it as much as I should be.

Either way, I always feel disappointed whenever I find out major movies like this aren't more than two hours, I'm not sure why. I do believe that quantity is a considerable factor of quantity, but that is just me. I love my movies to be ironed out, etc. I also just think that it's funny that $225 million went into this movie, yet I don't feel I'll be able to point out where all of it went when I see this.

Of course, I also have to consider that this is part two of Casino Royale really, so there really isn't much "introduction" involved to begin with... but I just hope the story is prioritized before the action sequences, if that makes sense.

I hope I'll love it. I'm sure I will, but I just don't know if this will ever be able to stack up to Casino Royale, which is to me, hands down, the greatest Bond movie.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

Well I suppose that, like the reviewers, I spoiled myself with Casino Royale. I think in the end I'm just going to end up comparing it to that than any other action garbage released this year, and not praising it as much as I should be.

Either way, I always feel disappointed whenever I find out major movies like this aren't more than two hours, I'm not sure why. I do believe that quantity is a considerable factor of quantity, but that is just me. I love my movies to be ironed out, etc. I also just think that it's funny that $225 million went into this movie, yet I don't feel I'll be able to point out where all of it went when I see this.

Of course, I also have to consider that this is part two of Casino Royale really, so there really isn't much "introduction" involved to begin with... but I just hope the story is prioritized before the action sequences, if that makes sense.

I hope I'll love it. I'm sure I will, but I just don't know if this will ever be able to stack up to Casino Royale, which is to me, hands down, the greatest Bond movie.

I am still baffled that they spent $225 million dollars on this. That is a lot for a movie, considering the Bond franchise was going back to basics.

[pfunk880]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

I do believe that quantity is a considerable factor of quantity, but that is just me.

I think that is just you.

[Blzer]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

I think that is just you.

Let me put it this way (and GeonosisX won't ever hear the end of this): Saw IV was a wreck because of how short it was for the amount of material put into the movie. This was a poor director's decision. Movies need to give us room to breathe, recollect, and put together the pieces. Some long movies, I feel, could have even been longer: The Dark Knight could have had slower, additional scenes perhaps with Wayne even doing something like looking at a picture of his parents (cuing the music from Batman Begins whenever he thought of them) and perhaps Alfred chiming something in about them. It was quite awkward that they were never brought up again. Or maybe Wayne breaking down a bit after the loss of Rachel.

Things like this go a long way in movies I feel. I'm watching The Bourne Ultimatum as we speak, and I'm at the scene where they're taking a ferry to Tangier. It's a nice twenty second scene of nothingness. Bourne is looking over the edge with Parsons right next to him, and she looks at him for a second, then looks back down. This is a scene that is almost right after the scene in the restaurant when she implicitly they've had an intimate past together. These two scenes, in Saw IV, would have been maybe thirty seconds long, when together they were at least three minutes long in this movie. Ironing things out like this are very nice for movies, and IMO it ups the quality of the movie. I never meant longer movies in general are better (though I feel less cheated when paying $10.50 at a theater)... but stretching out your material is important IMO.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

Let me put it this way (and GeonosisX won't ever hear the end of this): Saw IV was a wreck because of how short it was for the amount of material put into the movie. This was a poor director's decision. Movies need to give us room to breathe, recollect, and put together the pieces. Some long movies, I feel, could have even been longer: The Dark Knight could have had slower, additional scenes perhaps with Wayne even doing something like looking at a picture of his parents (cuing the music from Batman Begins whenever he thought of them) and perhaps Alfred chiming something in about them. It was quite awkward that they were never brought up again. Or maybe Wayne breaking down a bit after the loss of Rachel.

Things like this go a long way in movies I feel. I'm watching The Bourne Ultimatum as we speak, and I'm at the scene where they're taking a ferry to Tangier. It's a nice twenty second scene of nothingness. Bourne is looking over the edge with Parsons right next to him, and she looks at him for a second, then looks back down. This is a scene that is almost right after the scene in the restaurant when she implicitly they've had an intimate past together. These two scenes, in Saw IV, would have been maybe thirty seconds long, when together they were at least three minutes long in this movie. Ironing things out like this are very nice for movies, and IMO it ups the quality of the movie. I never meant longer movies in general are better (though I feel less cheated when paying $10.50 at a theater)... but stretching out your material is important IMO.

I see where you are coming from, but sometime its about quality over quantity. Too many good movies that at times dragged on for far too long. We will see in 2 weeks with QOS.

BTW, mid week, I am going to be running a contest on my site giving away codes for 3-4 QOS movie tickets.

[Blzer]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

Keep me posted.

And like I said, it's not about the length of the movie (the amount of material), it's about the length of the material provided. If you take Saw IV and stretch out the same material over 120 minutes, I'm sure I would have liked the movie a lot more. Adding 30 minutes more of new material won't solve the pacing issues of that movie.

I always prefer quality over quantity... but like I said earlier, sometimes they go hand-in-hand.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: James Bond: Quantum of Solace

Keep me posted.

And like I said, it's not about the length of the movie (the amount of material), it's about the length of the material provided. If you take Saw IV and stretch out the same material over 120 minutes, I'm sure I would have liked the movie a lot more. Adding 30 minutes more of new material won't solve the pacing issues of that movie.

I always prefer quality over quantity... but like I said earlier, sometimes they go hand-in-hand.

It will go up either Tuesday or Wednesday, so keep checking back.

I agree about SAW IV, which was one of my minor complaints that it should have been a bit longer. That extended cut that everyone was talking about never released on DVD either from what I remember which was to add another 20 or so minutes to the film.

Two more weeks and I can't wait for this one to release.