James Bond: Quantum of Solace (2008)

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 oktober 2008 17:42 schreef Tinuzzz_Talpa het volgende:
Videoclip Quantum of Solace Song

quote:

Op maandag 6 oktober 2008 18:46 schreef -Menn0- het volgende:
Ja duh! Maar hij doet het bij mij niet....

quote:

Op zaterdag 4 oktober 2008 20:08 schreef Mip1988 het volgende:
wow volgende maand al! erg veel zin in

quote:

00Trek

As noted last week, Paramount was considering non-Paramount films for the right fit for the Star Trek trailer. The goal is to reach the widest possible audience and it appears that a decision has been made.
Not fully confirmed, but reading between the lines, indications are that (as guessed by many) the new Star Trek trailer will likely precede the new James Bond film Quantum of Solace, which premieres November 14th, just one month from tomorrow.
The last James Bond film, 2006’s Casino Royale, which was also a ‘franchise restart,’ grossed almost $600 million world wide.

The new Bond film is the perfect fit for the wider general audience they are targeting for Abrams Trek.
And MGM will probably be happy too. Our current poll states that 45% of Trek fans will see ‘any movie’ or ‘almost any movie’ just to catch a glimpse of the trailer.

Many Trek fans went to see Cloverfield in its record-breaking opening weekend, just to be the first to see the Star Trek teaser trailer. The same is likely to be true for Trek fans headed to see the new Bond film to see the first theatrical trailer.

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 oktober 2008 11:09 schreef Mikkie het volgende:
Geen "My name is Bond, James Bond." in een 007-film is als Die Hard zonder "Yippie kay-yee motherfucker!"

quote:

Quantum of Solace (12A)

Verdict: Quantity of Boredom, more like - 2/5

The 22nd Bond picture is the shortest yet, but feels like one of the longest.

About an hour in, I began to feel something I haven't for quite a few years in a Bond film - bored.

That's because the script makes very little sense. We rarely know how or why Bond is doing what he is, or going where he is.

The script makes such huge leaps of geography and motivation that whole scenes of exposition must have been left on the cuttingroom floor. The resulting film is as meaningless as its title.

If we don't marvel at Bond's ability to extract the information he needs, and he becomes just a running, chasing, killing machine, that removes a large part of why he's attractive.

Daniel Craig looks extremely cool, and he has always been a strong actor, but he's never able to show us the depth he did in Casino Royale.

In his second outing as 007, he sets about using his licence to kill, in no uncertain manner. So set is he on vengeance that he makes Rambo look like a pussycat.

That monotony of callousness may be very modern, but it's the reason Timothy Dalton never quite worked as Bond - he lacked wit and humour.

Craig showed in Casino Royale that he can play comedy, but he's lost without help from the script.

The gags have gone, along with the gadgets. Wit and fun have deserted the franchise.
The remarkably incoherent plot has Bond chasing the killers of his treacherous lover, Vesper, which leads him to a Bolivian general who wants to be dictator, and a greedy international criminal (Mathieu Amalric, so memorable as the paralysed anti-hero of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) with environmental pretensions, but a secret agenda.
Amalric makes his villain a nasty little rodent of a man, but he's physically unimpressive, and tactically he's clueless.

Bond deserves better adversaries than this.

The only time 007 seems in genuine danger is when M (Judi Dench) gets so cross with him that she cuts off all his credit cards.

There are two Bond girls. Olga Kurylenko, as Camille, and Gemma Arterton, as an MI6 agent, both look great, but neither has much in the way of character. They're instantly forgettable, and the sex is as anodyne as you would expect from the 12A certificate.

The whole thing plays as though the producers are ticking off a list of ingredients.
Mountainside car chase with Bond in an Aston Martin? Check. Rooftop chase? Check. Speedboat chase? Check. Nude girl dead and covered in gunk? Check.

The familiarity of that shopping list might not matter if the sequences were as good as the ones they are imitating, but they aren't.

Director Marc Forster can direct actors, as he proved in Finding Neverland and Monster's Ball, but he was quite the wrong choice to make a Bond film.

He has no flair for action, and commits the same sins that were visible in this week's big chase thriller, Eagle Eye.

He gets in so close with the camera that we don't know what's happening, why, where or to whom. As a result, we stop caring.

Some of the stunts remain impressive, and this picture will do well because of its predecessors. But it's a huge disappointment.

quote:

Op maandag 20 oktober 2008 21:01 schreef lnino het volgende:
Deze recensie is een stuk positiever
http://entertainment.time(...)l/article4965892.ece

Hoe het ook zij; Ik ga hem sowieso zien, want het is een Bond-film en beoordeel dan zelf wel met welke recensie ik het eens ben

quote:

Op maandag 20 oktober 2008 18:58 schreef Yi-Long het volgende:
De eerste recensie is uit, en het is NIET positief
http://www.dailymail.co.u(...)uantum-Nonsense.html
[..]

Kut.

Ik had al een voorvermoeden dat de film te kort zou zijn, en dat daarmee de karakterisatie etc op een laag pitje zou komen, maar dit is wel erg laag

quote:

Op dinsdag 21 oktober 2008 00:10 schreef davidov het volgende:
Filmblad "empire" gaf de film een 4/5. Ze zijn altijd wel een beetje positief over bond maar ze gaven aan dat CR sterker was. Desalniettemin waren ze positief.

quote:

Op dinsdag 21 oktober 2008 18:07 schreef Mikkie het volgende:
Ik ga 'm ook absoluut zien, maar uit de recensies blijkt wel dat het niet zo'n pareltje is als Casino Royale...