I made a point of seeing a 10am session to avoid the rush, it paid off - wasn't packed. Overall I really liked the movie. Can't fault it in too many places, was entertaining the whole duration: 8/10.

Good: Multiple car, boat, plane, foot chases. Plenty of action and international locations.

Bad: worst Bond (musical) theme ever. It sucked on so many levels. I have no idea who Alicia Keys or Jack White are, but they should never be allowed to touch a microphone nor musical instrument again. They embody everything I hate about modern music.

you are extremely bad at music (the theme did suck though, liked how one music review said if only alicia's voice was as big as her ass)

Jack White is one half of the White Stripes, but yeah, I agree, the theme sucks.

seeing tonight brb

did it roll 3 movies/stories into one again?

you are extremely bad at music

Yeah I apologise that I don't listen to and hence am not familiar with .. crap music.

Casino Royale is the bees knees of bond movies. I doubt that this will compete with it in any way. We now have a new dateline of Before Casino Royale and After Casino Royale.

Apparently it is s*** according to the old man and old woman on the SBS movie review show, and they say they loved Casino Royale. They said it was like a Jason Bourne film with irritating editing and little depth.

was it directed by the same dude that did casino royale?

no

well there you have it. its s*** because its not the same director.

ok this movie is awesome. yes the music in the opening credits is bland and forumla but the action is fantastic. a lot more hand to hand combat ah lah "bourne identity" or "taken", some interesting old characters return, a different spin on the whole bond girl thing, and most importantly the new james bond: a blunt instrument who is unstoppable.

i always hated pre-daniel craig how suave and sophisticated bond was, using delicate precise judo chops. now bond smashes, strangles and throws people off balconies. (watch for the sony hd commercial at the start where bond weather's numerous explosions in graphic detail.)

casino royale's story is far superior, but for action this does surpass it.

in summary: another enjoyable bond expedition - well done old chap!

last edited by infi at 00:06:56 20/Nov/08

a lot more hand to hand combat ah lah "bourne identity" or "taken"

By that do you mean close up shaky cam where you can't see wtf is going on?

not so much that just brutal bloody painful engagements. the camera does shake from time to time.

shakey cam sucks monkey balls

Without shakey cam it would look like s*** because you could see how fakeo the fights are just like American wrestling.

i hate seeing fake fights at the movies

Got a bad feeling this movie is gonna be a disappointment.

i liked it :) alot better than some of the other bonds. to hand2hand combat looks half decent.. compared to the old 1 hit ko bond.

Seeing this next Tuesday for free, thanks Webcentral

just got back from seeing it.

not as good as casino royale but it would be pretty hard to top that. action was good, plot wasn't too bad. my only gripe is that the movie didn't seem to have much of a climax, it just sort of ended.

3.5/5 imo.

Saw this last night. It was okay, but nowhere near as good as Casino Royale. Also, if you've never seen Casino Royale, don't bother seeing this, it wont make any sense. My housemate didn't tell us until after the movie finished that he hadn't seen Casino Royale. He was incredibly confused.

I saw it last night, and TBH i felt it was pretty f***ing s***. The editing on most of the chase scenes was terrible, and the plot was barely there. I just felt like was watching some random action film rather than a Bond movie.

My question is why did they choose some weird arthouse director to make a Bond film?

The action was good but the storyline was complete ass and the motives behind the villain were dumb. I hate to say this but they need to bring back more of the toys Bond got to use in the earlier films because right now the movies don't feel very Bond-ish at all. Well to me anyway.

The toys were crap and cliched and I am glad they got rid of them. if you want to see a good plot watch Body of Lies with Leonardo De Caprio and Russell Crowe.

They should write Bond plots more like that. Where there is no good or evil just players...

I hate to say this but they need to bring back more of the toys Bond got to use in the earlier films because right now the movies don't feel very Bond-ish at all. Well to me anyway.

They're not meant to feel Bond-ish. This is before he looks/talks/acts smooth, before he's emotionally stable, before he has a proper taste in drinks. Everything is meant to feel raw and personal as he's developing into mature Bond.

Also you don't want to go too far with the gadgets, didn't one of the movies have an invisible car?

yeh I can't agree with ya about the toys rev
I didn't mind this bond movie too much, didn't think it was particularly special tho

definitely agree this dude is the best bond

I know what you mean about the gadgets, but they don't have to be silly like that invisible car. So what do you reckon would be a good time frame to introduce things like that? Next movie or wait a bit longer? They'll need to change something or these movies will just feel like the Bourne ones. Not saying they're bad though.

What do you need gadgets for? Clear me up on that part first...

rev has been around the world and tried millions of women (and men!) - none of them ever _really_ satisfied him

what else is left but gadgets!

Well considering the last 20 or so movies in the franchise had them I don't see a problem with putting them in. I bet you've prolly got an ace up your sleeve and tell me Ian Flemming never originally intended for the character to have them. Tell me I'm right?

8-)

So what do you reckon would be a good time frame to introduce things like that?

Never?

The movies are much better without them. Though if they made the gadgets actually technically believable or low-tech and used them intelligently and sparingly (i.e. not as an off-topic plot distraction) I'd have no issues with that.

last edited by parabol at 12:50:09 21/Nov/08

bring a tiny bit of reality into things never hurt, look at the new batman franchise

tell me Ian Flemming never originally intended for the character to have them

Well duh :P There were no gadgets in the books and they were excellent. Daniel Craig is the closest to the book Bond without a doubt. He's craggy and scarred and looks like he has been a navy commando in the past.

The book Bond was a f***ed up individual that hated himself for being a killer, but didn't know what else to do. Fell in love, had his bride die on him on their wedding day which pushed him over the edge and made him a f*** off killing machine with no compassion (or completely misplaced compassion) whatsoever. Hence the use 'em and lose 'em attitude to women, which just got cheesey in the movies.

Good books, recommended.

Looking forward to this movie too...

The movie was really average imo. I made the joke that after the plane battle they were going to have a battle with spaceships. What's with running along rooftops and jumping between buildings in almost every action movie these days anyway?

3/5

did anyone else watch the movie and think its probably a good idea david hicks still has a control order on him.

i mean, for the sake of our water supplies.

thats too political for a james bond movie.

I enjoyed it. I think to me a lot of the bad parts of the movie is masked by how much better Daniel Craig's 'Bond' is. Giving him rationale for motives and being a character closer to the books adds a little bit of depth that helps a lot. Movie would have been way better without that farcical plane sequence.

Still no Thunderball or On Her Majesty's but at least they aren't destroying the movies any more after the s***e they were putting out at the end of Brosnans time. No Q or gadgets helps heaps.

I agree with those saying the movie was average. He's definitely the best Bond, but this movie just lacked something, it just felt "average". I guess it didn't help the story was pretty s*** and didn't make the audience care about his goals at all.

Oh my that was s***. Being such a huge fan of Casino Royale, I was thinking last night during the movie "WTF is this s***". I knew it wouldn't be as good as royale but not that bad. Why did they change directors after such great success with royale, supposed to stick with a good thing people!! Oh man don't get me started with the opening song, it really indicated to me how crap the director was and how bad the movie was gonna be. End rant :/

Yeah, I was disappointed with the opening too.

needed another parkour opening hey =)

Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace

Daniel Craig's Bond > *

Quantum of Solace's opening theme < haemorrhoid surgery in a forest with a dirty stick (*this statement not based on personal experience)

I knew it would be hard to improve on Casino Royale's brilliance, but I had hoped they'd at least stay close to the mark. I too found QoS to be lacking depth. And the whole flying combat sequence was cringe-worthy from start to finish.

Will watch Casino Royale again. Can't say the same for Quantum of Solace.

Yep, that sucked.

Some of the action was ok, but the story line really did suck, like wtf??

Theme music was bad, the shakey camera was a big piss off and why didn't felix just shoot that other fbi guy?

dumb plot..

i will give it 2.5 out of 5.

I must say, towards the last half hour i was waiting for thing to finish so i could get the f*** out ASAP. Something i haven't felt about a movie for a while.

just saw it then. I liked it apart from the intro music..

but i do have one question. if these new ones are supposed to be pre-bond (as in pre the old movies) then why are they using Euros and talking about global warming?

if these new ones are supposed to be pre-bond (as in pre the old movies) then why are they using Euros and talking about global warming?

The same reason the movie isn't set in the 50s when the novels were made.

fair point

i guess :)

Movie owned.

Casino Royal was a goddam chick flick.

Daniel Craig puncing around with a shaved chest in tiny swimmers and there's no scantily clad women.

I thought it was going to turn into a romantic comedy halfway through ffs.

Was the chick in this film the same one from hitman?

Was the chick in this film the same one from hitman?

Hard to say, considering I haven't seen Hitman yet.

^ please rate this post for its awesomeness at answering your question.

i rate it a fail (just to annoy maxe)

I accept your rating on those terms.

Saw it the other night - was s***. No depth to the storyline or plot at all. And bond had a million chances to kill the bad guy but never did anything, but then just keeps chasing him to other places on the globe for another chance to kill him but then not do it?

I actually liked the opening theme though.

Casino Royal was excellent but when about 30minutes too long.

Was the chick in this film the same one from hitman?

yes

So is an earlier review of this movie that I read which described it as "Lethal Weapon 9" fair and accurate? The comments here so far seem to confirm that point of view.