|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| matthews_world wrote: |
| OP, change the thread title to the movie's proper name. |
No, that's part of the fun of it. See the video I linked to above.
I'm making fun of the name.
Per dictionary.com :
| Quote: |
| 2. a furthest or culminating point; a turning point |
We are seeing a turning point -- a departure from the Bond we once knew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: Re: Saw the new Bond movie: Quantum of Solstice |
|
|
| bassexpander wrote: |
Well, we are lucky here, because we get to see this movie a bit earlier than America, I'm told.
I went with high expectations, but ended up walking out of the theater with mixed feelings. I don't want to spoil this, so I'll just give a brief view of my feelings about the movie.
1. There was practically no humor in it at all. I tend to like the witty Bond humor that comes out, and it just wasn't there. Something was missing without it.
2. My wife commented that Bond didn't use any unique or interesting weapons/devices. In Casino Royale, we at least had the cool anti-poison defibrilator thingie in the car. It's as if the director (who also did Bourne movies) got lost in the "tough guy" aspect of it, gave Bond a .380 and a lot of Bourne-style fight scenes, and figured it was enough. Odd that she would notice such a thing, but I didn't.
3. This movie is dark. I can't think of a single soul being lighthearted in it. It's continually serious all of the time.
4. In an attempt to make the evil organization seem so secretive, they didn't give the viewer enough to go on. This left my wife and I feeling a bit underwhelmed by "the villain" aspect of the picture.
5. Bond didn't have enough sex. The girl he slept with wasn't even the one we expected he would sleep with in the previews. No witty foreplay. No tension. What a downer! Again... too serious!
6. The typical Hollywood anti-war digs were in there... using Euro dollars instead of US dollars, "...because the US dollar isn't worth much due to wars" or however they put it. Also, the comment on the US being wrapped-up in the Middle-East while ignoring South America came off as some sort of dig.
7. The new James Bond dude looks like he's aged a lot from the last movie. Facially, anyway, he's got quite a few more wrinkles. He was often dirty and ragged in this flick, which made it seem worse. I bet blu-ray will REALLY highlight this. Sure, he's in great shape, but his face is looking so old it was almost hard to see him frolicking with someone much younger, if you catch my drift. I wonder if this will affect how long he continues to be a Bond guy?
8. The camera shakes way the hell too much!!! It's one thing to use the camera to make the scene look more action-packed, but when it turns the scene into a blur for several seconds over and over again... it's too much!
So overall, I guess I was not particularly impressed. |
Well said. Sums up my reaction too.
Edit:
I liked Casino better. It was like a prequel how-Bond-became-Bond movie. Only now he suddenly hasn't become Bond, he's just Daniel Craig, and who needs yet another standard action hero?
And his face is too ugly. How can women fall all over themselves for a man with a face like that? Who also isn't classy, isn't suave, and isn't even humourous?
And what was with the exploding building?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dOH8_Vf_xIE&feature=related |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tarmangani
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: the Calm
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I liked it. It was by far the best Ford commercial that I've ever seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. What a load of rubbish. Such a let down after Casino Royale. Aside from the blatant product placement i.e Ford (in one shot I thought it said Hydrogen something or other on the bonnet/hood) I thought the editing was terrible, most notably in the opening sequence and on the roof top chase about 20-minutes in. It was cut so heavily that you couldn't actually tell what was happening. Remember the crane chase scene in Casino Royale? That was really well shot. You could actually see what they were doing. I'm afraid that whoever edited Solace completely over egged it.
Also, the ending. WTF was all that about? Jeez. It was just completely ridiculous that that building had conveniently placed cannisters of hydrogen or whatever it was lying around. I think a lot of the story referred back to Casino Royale, so if you're planning on going to see Solace, it may pay you to refamiliarize yourself with the characters etc as reference is made to them frequently.
A couple of the hand-to-hand fight sequences were good, but overall, very disappointing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spagett
Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I much prefered Casio Roundel to Quantux of Solstice. 2 stars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious aka Sparkles
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Saw the new Bond movie: Quantum of Solstice |
|
|
| bassexpander wrote: |
| It's as if the director (who also did Bourne movies)]... |
No he didn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: Re: Saw the new Bond movie: Quantum of Solstice |
|
|
| Tiberious aka Sparkles wrote: |
| bassexpander wrote: |
| It's as if the director (who also did Bourne movies)]... |
No he didn't. |
Thanks to bassexpander, my wife totally schooled me when we saw it tonight. Also, I said I liked the opera scene and my wife said it's a total ripoff of Godfather. What is it with all Koreans and being experts at everything related to foreign movies (sorry, it's ESL Cafe, I have to make the wild generalisations based on the actions of a limited sample).
Things I didn't like about the movie:
-shaky camera work. You have a multi-million dollar budget. Get a cameraman who doesn't have epilepsy.
-explosive hotel. Seriously, we just had a department store collapse in Nonhyun, and it caused no explosions. Maybe when buildings get shot at, they don't blow up.
-Simplicity of plot. Every Bond movie I've ever liked had some sort of catch to it, usually revolving around one bad guy or one country or maybe one girl. This one was a sequence of action shorts strung together.
-Remember when he dropped down on the hood of the car with the chief of police or whatever, and mentioned they had a friend in common or something, before killing everybody? I couldn't decide if he was talking about Mathis, Fields, or M. Probably Mathis, but it wasn't clear enough.
Other than that, I pretty well liked it. Great settings, great lack of goofiness such as gadgets and corny one-liners, and great casting. Oh yeah, and I had no problem with the politics of the movie; 007 movies have always had a cynical view of the US, and everything said in this film made sense. It's clear when you watch Casino Royale that it's based on a very classic book, and this one is just screenwriters throwing stuff together, but still enjoyable, and if my wife, who hates James Bond, likes it, then I have to side with her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
safeblad
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| samcheokguy wrote: |
| Why was there H-gas in every room? |
i wondered about that too but apparently they dropped in some line about using hydrogen cells to power the building before bond showed up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's AS IF the director did the Bourne Identity...
| dean_burrito wrote: |
| The movie was a bit of a bore. It was more like some average action movie than a James Bond movie. |
Exactly.
I'd rather watch a Pierce Brosnan 007 flick a third or fourth time (eg., ice chase of Die Another Day) than ever watch this Bond film ever again. Once was enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't even get who the secret organization was exactly; was it the Greene company that wanted to control Bolivia's water? Agreed that they need to make it a little more explicit.
I like Brosnan as Bond- the situations and stunts Bond does are so ridiculous, having a sense of humour about them doesn't hurt. Brosnan had that.
Also: no gadgets, standard Aston Martin, no sexual jokes, no sex scenes, etcetera. What happened to names like "*beep* Galore"? I know there can be no return to those days, but don't let the tradition die altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
talltony4
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good film, way above the bond average I thought.
I loved that it wasn't too long. When it got to some sort of conclusion at the 90 minute mark I was inwardly groaning, thinking "ok, here comes the ridiculous plot twist that drags this movie out", but no!
Humour was there. I think that was the Ford Explorer (?) with the Hydrogen badge.
No sex scene was a relief. Just the aftermath, which was tasteful
I agree that the exploding hotel was a bit weird |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I agree that the exploding hotel was a bit weird |
The fact that there was no sweet car, no sexy scene (Bond has NEVER had or needed a proper sex scene), and no cheeky humor....I find that weird. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious aka Sparkles
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| It's AS IF the director did the Bourne Identity... |
I agree; but read bassexpander's original post. He claimed the director, Marc Forster, was part of the Bourne series of films. He wasn't.
I wonder, did anyone who actually watched QOS see Casino Royale? Because I have a feeling a lot of the dislike for QOS comes from audiences ignorant of the fact that this is a sequel, rather than a stand-alone Bond flick.
Where's Monneypenny? Q? My mommy?
James Bond is different and I'm all alone! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ But Casino Royale at least had an Aston Martin, a gadget (the defibrillator), Moneypenny, the kind of activity only the upper crust do (the super high stakes poker game), and a villain with a dodgy eye. It was building up to the traditional Bond character, establishing how he got that way, rather than tearing him down. That's what the Bond theme coming right at the end signalled.
Or at least I thought that's what it did until seeing this newest one where they shed completely what remained of the Bond character, leaving an yet another action hero - only ugly looking - in its place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
