Bond 22 named: Quantum of Solace

[ezg]

Blu-ray of QOS is £14.99 in Morrisons if anyone's after it for the cheapness, picked mine up this morning.

[MJ]

Oh the dvd is ?7 instore at tesco, ?7 ffs! So glad i pre orderd for ?13...

Isn't that ?7 for the two-disc edition too.

[SuperDanX]

Isn't that ?7 for the two-disc edition too.

yeah 2 disc edition

[Geoff D]

2 disc edition is £6.98 at Amazon for those that don't like to get up.

[Neon Ignition]

Ordered it from Play on Blu-ray and it turned up on Saturday so watched it that night. Plays a lot better on a rewatch though it's still largely let down by choppy pacing and a terrible Director when it comes to action. Hopefully for Daniel Craig's third outing he'll be given a more rounded script and a better Director as he definately has a lot of untapped potential in the role.

[merf]

just watched on sky, what a pile of cack.

the action scenes are so confusing, its like they tried to copy Bourne with no concept of what made them great. choppy editing isn't the key to it, in Bourne you always are aware of his surroundings and how he is faring in extracting himself from the situation, several times in this I just lost track of what was going on (the fight early on where Bond ends up upside down on a rope

throw in some sucky cgi effects, ****e story and Daniel Craig's 'Bond as a murderous Burtons dummy' and it adds up to a pretty crappy effort all round

[abigsmurf]

Yep. Quick cuts need to die a death. Either hire stunt doubles or actually give the stars martial arts training. Don't use quick cuts to hide the fact that they're actually punching 6 inches to the left of the other guy.

No plot of note and the 'big evil plan' managed to be even more crap than the one in Tommorrow Never Dies.

Not to mention that a Bond film shouldn't require that much knowledge of the previous film to tell who is who. I had seen Casino Royale but the amount that you were expected to remember was stupid.

[merf]

the overarching 'story' narked the hell out of me too, I thought Bond's are meant to stand alone, plus the fact the story is crap, Bond films aren't about a few Bolivians running out of water.

was reading IMDB and loved the description that Craig can't be Bond as he looks like a Polish boxer.

I don't object to quick cuts per se, in Bourne they work brilliantly and I loved the shakey cam style in the 3rd one, really added to the atmos and your immersion as a viewer, like all flashy film techniques though you have to understand them to use them well, otherwise you are a just a me-to copycat and it can fail badly, as in this steamer of a movie.

[Skull Commander]

I just watched this and thought it was very good. I didn't have any problems following the plot and thought the action scenes were decent.

I was speaking to my wife about Bond nowadays, and we agreed tha they cannot be the same type of film as they were. Up till the 90's they were a product of their time, and as the Brosnon era showed, they became almost like parodies of themselves.

The only way they could move it on was to return to the first vision of Bond, a grittier less campy character. I enjoy the older style as much as the next person, but there is no way they could keep making them in this day and age in that way without it being like Austin Powers.