007 - Quantum of Bollocks
Archived24 replies · 1,384 views
patrick stewart appreciation society wrote: Fuck me i haven't been so bored in a cinema since Transformers
Let me guess.....touchy feely bond agonizes over wasting bad guys, and his only gadget is a compact that deploys skin cream.
Why does eveything have to be exactly the same these days....23% this, 16% the other etc etc.
It's like the way it is now IMPOSSIBLE to watch a documentary about anything, even theoretical maths, that does not turn into a touchy feely pile of pish about "the human story of the people who created the equation". Pah! Patrick Moore might be right, they need to get the chicks (or, more likely marketing droids) the fuck outta program planning.
/rant
I have not seen much about it yet... but would you rather they remake the same exact Bond film over and over and over like they did in the past?
By the way, how come Patrick Stewart has not got any Bond movie screen time? He piss somebody off?
Not watched one since Moonraker........1st ever 'date' at Unit 4 Rawtenstall with the second year juniors slapper....
think it put me off Bond films for life...
0_o wrote: I have not seen much about it yet... but would you rather they remake the same exact Bond film over and over and over like they did in the past?
By the way, how come Patrick Stewart has not got any Bond movie screen time? He piss somebody off?
Well which is better.......
- Bond film which is like every other bond movie. Or.
- Bond movie that is like "driving miss daisy" or "the bridges of madison county".
Marketing scum ruin every single creative endeavour.
Alf wrote: Not watched one since Moonraker........1st ever 'date' at Unit 4 Rawtenstall with the second year juniors slapper....
I bailed out on Bond partially after License to Kill, which was just a painful waste of two hours. Mr Brosnin(sp?) breathed some life into it thereafter....I mean you could tell he'd waited his whole life to say "the name's Bond, James Bond". But then came the one with the russian pipeline (the name of which eludes me), where bond started this slide towards touchy feely Bond. All I could think of was the two cops in H2G2..........
"(1)we're a couple of caring, sensitive guys that you'd really like if you met us socially. (2)I mean we don't go around gratuitously blowing up planets and then brag about it in seedy space bars. (1)No, I go round gratuitously blowing up planets, and then I agonize about it to my girlfriend. (2)And I write poetry.
Paddy S is not Bond material. I will tell you who is, and who came VERY close to getting it after Lazenby stank so badly and before Connery returned......Paddy McGoohan!!!!!!!
Mind you.....
Q: Do pay attention 007 Bond: I am not a number, I AM A FREE MAN!!!!!!
0_o wrote: I have not seen much about it yet... but would you rather they remake the same exact Bond film over and over and over like they did in the past?
By the way, how come Patrick Stewart has not got any Bond movie screen time? He piss somebody off?
No i just would like one that had a story, one that didn't feel the need to copy the Bourne shaky camera shit, one that had a villan who was actually Evil and wanted to destroy shit.one that wasn't hurtled along at break-neck speed so the audience could actually be able to be fed some story and not another chase
you'll see when it comes out in the USA.
Plus every single set piece has been shown to death on every talk show/trailer the world over so left very little for suprise if anything. I found my self sat there thinking, oh i've seen this bit, oh and i've seen this bit,and this bit, and this bit, and this bit and this bit, oh its the end credits
Doctor? wrote: But then came the one with the russian pipeline (the name of which eludes me), where bond started this slide towards touchy feely Bond.
I wouldnt have minded being touchy feely with the Bond girls from that film..
I think new Bond doesn't have that sort of ironic distance from what's happenning (to him)- and that ruined specific Bond atmosphere. All previous Bonds had it, except T.Dalton maybe.
milenko cvorkov wrote: I think new Bond doesn't have that sort of ironic distance from what's happenning (to him)- and that ruined specific Bond atmosphere. All previous Bonds had it, except T.Dalton maybe.
In my opinion that makes the whole thing more realistic. And please don't tell me that the first Craig Bond was without irony. It was the most ironic Bond I've ever seen.
I really did like this one,alright no gadgets,but the set-pieces were brilliant. Just one of those story-lines that you can't afford to blink, hang on who's this guy? But I prefer what they've done to Bond than seeing the same story replayed in different locations.And also back to what made Bond films great...the stunt-work. The CGI action pieces in DIE ANOTHER DAY were frankly embarrassing.
My Dad used to work for United Artists, then EON Productions as the 'Bond' company became.
I'd get Christmas prezzies from Cubby Broccoli and Michael Wilson, signed pics from Roger Moore, Sean Connery, Richard Kiel and alot of (to my early teen mind) very pretty Bond Girls.
I did start to wonder about the films though. If the first however-many were 'samey', then that's because Ian Fleming had one good idea Bond-wise and then just yacked it up again and again. Originally, the more cruel, cynical Bond of the books was discarded - simply because people thought the 'public' wouldn't see him as a hero.
Nowadays, the stories aren't Flemming's books, they're simply standard action movie plots that follow the same old tired theme... again.
If EON found a great writer or writers, allowed Bond to be more cruel, sinister, cynical, etc. and brought in a really good director AND Director of cinematography (different things) then they might have an interesting, well made film.
I haven't bothered with Bond since Roger Moore went (his name even sounds like he should be a character in a Bond film or some cheap porn).
As it is, the Bond films will continue in the same tedious vein - but then, that's what some people enjoy - it's 'safe' and they know what to expect.
I'd love to see a Bond film done properly though. I've sent off my script...
Is this moviereally that bad? Did everyone like the last one? I hated the Pierce movies, where Bond is an expert at everything... instead I loved Connery as the Bond who knew little, but was an expert at improvising... the last movie was a return to that (well, mostly).
Chris Nash wrote: My Dad used to work for United Artists, then EON Productions as the 'Bond' company became.
I'd get Christmas prezzies from Cubby Broccoli
He invented broccoli you know..
MONTY'S MINISTRY OF FOOD wrote:
Chris Nash wrote: My Dad used to work for United Artists, then EON Productions as the 'Bond' company became.
I'd get Christmas prezzies from Cubby Broccoli
He invented broccoli you know..
It wasn't Cubby Monty - it was his grandfather...
I canot judge Quantum of Solace as its not come out here in the US yet, but..
I am a huge fan of Ian Fleming's original Bond novels from the 1950's and early 60's, read them all numerous times. My favorites are On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Goldfinger, Dr. No, Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, and From Russia With Love.
Beautifully written books, fantastic lots and characters, great attention to detail. Great reads. Of course they are very un PC, but they are products of thier time period.
When it comes to the films, for me, only Dr. No, FRWL, Goldfinger, OHMSS, and Casino Royale capture the flavor and feelings of the books, and Bond's character.
I would venture to say that Casino Royale is one of the Top 3 Bond films ever, right up there with FRWL and Goldfinger.
As for Bond being sensitive..
In the original novels, James Bond is a very complex three dimensional character. The novels are great reads because Bond himself is quite interesting. And yes, he is vunerable, and he has feelings. The ending of OHMSS is tragic.
Daniel Craig has come closer than any other actor, including Sean Connery (who is the best Bond) to capturing the Bond that Ian Fleming wrote.
Some people might just want Bond films to be action films, but I prefer them to be character driven, as the early films, Casino Royale, and the novels were.
That being said, I cannot judge Quantum until I see it. It may very well be a Quantum of Bollocks for all I know!
[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I really can't get into 007, regardless of who the actor is.
Not even if it was Harvey Keitel?
MONTY'S MINISTRY OF FOOD wrote: I really did like this one,alright no gadgets,but the set-pieces were brilliant. Just one of those story-lines that you can't afford to blink, hang on who's this guy? But I prefer what they've done to Bond than seeing the same story replayed in different locations.And also back to what made Bond films great...the stunt-work. The CGI action pieces in DIE ANOTHER DAY were frankly embarrassing.
About right. The story needed fleshing about a bit but yes the stunt work was excellent. What was the point of Gemma Arteton's part though? She had all of two lines and she's fit as..
The main song is still shit though.
Quantum is like a regular Bond movie, except with about 30-40 minutes of story and humour edited out. Maybe it is good to bypass all the cheesy cliches of the past movies but I still miss Connery. Pretty movie but pretty boring. Glad it was short.
There seems to be a suppossedly emotional story of revenge concering Bond based on the last movie, but Quantum draws little emotion or interest in this backstory, the story is so sparse. I don't remember the first movie that well, and this movie did little to interest in the story. Viewer just has to assume that Bond is rightfully still really upset or something or other.
Craig seems like a good Bond in theory, looks good/tough/cool in action and in a suit, but Craig evokes little emotion in Quantum other than being stoically kinda pissed off all of the time... and Bond seems to show little concern about the body count that piles up because of his actions, hell he is already pissed off what does it matter.
The action is the current trend of being disorientating and uninvolving, always moving but often boring. My theory about current movies is that the director assumes that half the audience is smart enough to figure out the story and will appreciate that they are not being patronized with plot bullshit, while the other half of the audience are so stupid they will never try to understand the story no matter how simple it is draw out, so the plot is reduced to bare minimum = the star is the good guy, the other guys are all bad (except for one black guy maybe), the women want protection from the star even if they are bad.
Quantum is an intense film, it harkens back to the days of Steven Seagal. Ceaseless violence, a cold stare and gaze of death, and witty one liners. I'm instantly reminded of "Above the law", I still have little to no clue as to what Quantum is about, but it was eye candy and suitable to my social degenerate status. Daniel Craig, has an incredible ability, to evoke little to no emotion. The theme song is shit, and reminds me of bad asian acid jazz, but that's to be expected, hopefully rod stewart will do the next one. All in all, a film with less plot then I anticipated, made for a good night out. I enjoyed the action sequences, some snazzy shootouts, and of course beautiful scenery, just a shame it means nothing.
