Quantum of Solace - Oh Dear! Doesn't bode well for World War Z!

[Publius]

Also, the hotel - exactly, it's got that fuel cell stuff, hydrogen or something explosive anyway, it's simply a chain reaction, one gets taken out, the rest will go in a general sequence as the fire spreads - come on Neil, that's just a cheap low blow. In retrospect, say the hotel's owners, it may have been a mistake to construct the racks holding the fuel cells out of sticks of dynamite.

[MoonSylver]

Haven't seen either one yet, but just wanted to add a note to all directors: I HATE shaky-cam too, with a burning white hot passion...any movie that uses it probably ain't gettin' a cent of my money...it's WAY distracting, takes me out of the movie, ruins well choreographed fight scenes, & adds NOTHING to the movie. No it DOESN'T make me feel like I'm there...it makes me feel like the cameraman is having a seizure! (Only movie I saw where it fit was Children of Men during the scene where he's running down the streets & explosions are going on everywhere. In that case, yes it did fit. Felt like war footage. Two guys fighting HTH? No, totally out of place...unless one of them attacks the cameraman! )

[Publius]

(Only movie I saw where it fit was Children of Men during the scene where he's running down the streets & explosions are going on everywhere. In that case, yes it did fit. Felt like war footage. Two guys fighting HTH? No, totally out of place...unless one of them attacks the cameraman! ) I agree. It totally worked in Children of Men, especially with the long takes (or appearance thereof, at least). But generally, it's very distracting.

[wayzim]

It's "Every penny of it", man! What kind of Bond fan are you?!?!? And Publius - It's pretty plausible for a James Bond film. An old one, and one who's only seen this new Casino Royale 4 times, so far. That's together with all the other official movies, and unoffical, the second Casino Royale was a spoof with David Nivens as James Bond and Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond. (In fact most of the cast became James Bond by film's end.) Never Say Never Again( a sad non canon remake of Thunderball ), as well as most of Ian Fleming's original stories, also including Chitty-Bang Bang (bet ya didn't know he wrote that one. ) "Look, maybe I didn't say every single little tiny syllable ... " (Army of Darkness. ) Wayne Z "It's The Bishop! " (Confuse A Cat. Ltd. Or in this case; Baffle A Bond Fan. also Ltd )

[Neil]

I agree. It totally worked in Children of Men, especially with the long takes (or appearance thereof, at least). But generally, it's very distracting. But in COM, the shakey cam was subtle and gentle. In QOS it looked like there was a force 10 earthquake going on, and no individual shot was permitted to last more than 2 seconds without a cut. Dreadful!

[MinionZombie]

and no individual shot was permitted to last more than 2 seconds without a cut Don't watch the Blink182 music video for "The Rock Show" then ... christ.

[bassman]

An old one, and one who's only seen this new Casino Royale 4 times, so far. That's together with all the other official movies, and unoffical, the second Casino Royale was a spoof with David Nivens as James Bond and Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond. (In fact most of the cast became James Bond by film's end.) Never Say Never Again( a sad non canon remake of Thunderball ), as well as most of Ian Fleming's original stories, also including Chitty-Bang Bang (bet ya didn't know he wrote that one. ) "Look, maybe I didn't say every single little tiny syllable ... " (Army of Darkness. ) Whoa, man. I was just joshing around. I wasn't really doubting your 007 geekness. And you do know your bond. As for the shakey camera - I didn't find it all that distracting. True, there were a few times when it got out of hand, but for the most part I followed everything without a problem. I've seen far worse action camera work in many other films. And as a side note, I thought I would point out one thing in QOS that I thought was fantastic - The Beginning. I loved the calm helicopter shot across the ocean, then it cuts to the cars, then back to the ocean, etc etc. And the car chase was pretty friggin cool, imo.

[Neil]

As for the shakey camera - I didn't find it all that distracting. True, there were a few times when it got out of hand, but for the most part I followed everything without a problem. I've seen far worse action camera work in many other films. Think of the building site chase in Royale... The beauty, speed and brutality of that chase was perfectly caught, and not a single shake of the camera was needed. I found the car chase, roof top chase and boat chase in QOS all seemed to lose coherance and beauty because of the ludicrous camera shaking, and unecessary cuts. I'm sure those scenes could have been far more effective had we stood back a little more and been able to enjoy the shots more... rather than the director telling us, 'This is really some exciting $hit! Cos just look how much I'm wobbling the camera!!!!' Pretentious wank!

[bassman]

Think of the building site chase in Royale... The beauty, speed and brutality of that chase was perfectly caught, and not a single shake of the camera was needed. I found the car chase, roof top chase and boat chase in QOS all seemed to lose coherance and beauty because of the ludicrous camera shaking, and unecessary cuts. I'm sure those scenes could have been far more effective had we stood back a little more and been able to enjoy the shots more... rather than the director telling us, 'This is really exciting $hit! Cos just look how much I'm wobbling the camera!!!!' Perhaps. He is a first time action director, so i'll try to cut him some slack. Chris Nolan did the same thing with his first actioner, Batman Begins. Then The Dark Knight was smooth as a baby's bottom. I still say that the camera work in QOS wasn't all THAT bad. It had bad moments, but not constantly. That reminds me.....I like action as much as the next guy, but there seemed to be too much in QOS. It was action scene after action scene. I prefered the slower pace of CR.

[wayzim]

Whoa, man. I was just joshing around. I wasn't really doubting your 007 geekness. And you do know your bond. As for the shakey camera - I didn't find it all that distracting. True, there were a few times when it got out of hand, but for the most part I followed everything without a problem. I've seen far worse action camera work in many other films. And as a side note, I thought I would point out one thing in QOS that I thought was fantastic - The Beginning. I loved the calm helicopter shot across the ocean, then it cuts to the cars, then back to the ocean, etc etc. And the car chase was pretty friggin cool, imo. In the immortal words of Triumph The Insult Dog. "I ked, I ked. " It was like years ago I was at a Sci Fi con and some costumed geek was bustin on me because I chose to dress like a person. He says "What kind of a Science Fiction fan are you? " I turned round and said in a level slightly dangerous voice "Talk to me and you'll see. " Sometimes I make certain people nervous ... heh heh. "You expect me to talk? " "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die. " Goldfinger, the second best Bond film next to From Russia With Love. Wayne Z "He had a lot of guts. " (Worst pun in a surprisingly good and faithful Bond film adaption; On Her Majesty's Secret Service, with George Lazenby as 007. )

[MinionZombie]

The problem with QoS wasn't the amount of action, it was the pacing and placing of the action. It was very heavy up front, then all that vanished mostly for a huge chunk of the film, then we have the finale, which wasn't as spectacular as sinking a whole building in Venice it has to be said. And yet, CR is about half an hour or so longer than QoS, it all comes to pacing, as well as balancing out your elements - action and drama - in the best way, so there's failings in the direction, failings in the writing, and failings in the cinematography. It's not a total bust though, far from it, especially considering the impossible task of living up to Casino Royale. It's like Tomorrow Never Dies compared to Goldeneye - TND is good, but it's not Goldeneye. Also, indeed, QoS feels like the middle of something greater, so it's kind of awkward. I'm like you Bassman, I was fine with the shaky cam, only finding fault with it occasionally when I was struggling to follow what was happening where - the boat chase for instance - but I found the car chase to be breath-taking, and gasp-inducing, I was really feeling it ... although I would have liked more of it, they seem intent on f*cking up an absolutely gorgeous Aston Martin ASAP and then ignoring it for the rest of the flick. Although a DBS doesn't work that well in a desert, so it's understandable ... but I would like some more AM action. Flawed, but not a bundle of crap in a Kwiksave carrier bag.

[bassman]

they seem intent on f*cking up an absolutely gorgeous Aston Martin ASAP and then ignoring it for the rest of the flick. When you first see the Astin Martin, my brother leaned over and said "Didn't he JUST flip one like seven times.....and they gave him another??" Then as it got f*cked up during the chase he said "AHH! He's doing it again!"

[DjfunkmasterG]

I feel 'garbage' is somewhat strong. It's a mediocre action affair. But the weak script certainly is helped by the over-the-top busy camera work. Quite the opposite in the action scenes Your right Garbage is strong, so I will call it Rubbish. The film is a waste of time and Money. This is as bad as some of the Dalton Bond movies.

[bassman]

This is as bad as some of the Dalton Bond movies. There were only two Dalton films. And they were much better than the bulk of Moore's collection, imo. In fact, the Dalton films probably helped inspire the new, grittier Bond in CR. QOS a waste of time and money? Nah. If you enjoyed CR, it's worth it. Just don't expect the same exact film.

[wayzim]

There were only two Dalton films. And they were much better than the bulk of Moore's collection, imo. In fact, the Dalton films probably helped inspire the new, grittier Bond in CR. QOS a waste of time and money? Nah. If you enjoyed CR, it's worth it. Just don't expect the same exact film. My only problem with Living Daylights and License To Kill was that unlike the rest of the Bonds, Dalton just didn't seem to be having fun with the part (and I don't mean just playing 007 gritty and grim. ) Maybe it was the fact that the producers had really wanted Pierce Brosnan (who'd become popular from the show 'Remington Steele. ' but his people wouldn't release him from his contract ) and so Timothy Dalton was second choice? or worse? Probably not. ( an ironic turn to this was that shortly after that, Remington Steele was cancelled, go figure. ) Maybe he just didn't buy into the Bond mythos and it was just another job. Still, it was fun to see David Hedison reprise his role as Felix Leiter from Live and Let Die (73) in License To Kill. Wayne Z "This lighter has over two hundred functions, two hundred and one if you want to light a cigarette. " (In Like Flint, the best anti-Bond movie, starring James Coburn )