Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
Yesterday's Quantum of Solace business made it the biggest Bond ever, according to Fantasy Moguls' Steve Mason. Marc Forster's brutally efficient action-machine flick was estimated to have taken in roughly $27 million yesterday, give or take, with a potential three-day haul of $71.5 million. Casino Royale, Daniel Craig's debut film for the franchise, took in $14.7 million on its opening day (11.17.06).
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 15, 2008 at 5:39 AM
comment #1
Ray
says ...
It may have been "brutally efficient," but this new Bond movie took Bond in a direction that I felt was a bit too cold and too nasty. The character was borderline unlikeable in this film.
Bond's appeal as a character goes beyond his ability to be a lethal killer. While I certainly do not want a return to the days of Roger Moore, a little bit of style, class, or FUN is expected of a Bond movie. SOLACE makes CASINO ROYALE look like MOONRAKER.
Posted by Ray
at November 15, 2008 6:49 AM
comment #2
actionman
says ...
Not surprised by these numbers in the slightest.
Posted by actionman
at November 15, 2008 7:39 AM
comment #3
Jay T.
says ...
Quantum of Solace: Why so serious?
I hope this doesn't mean the next Bond film will be another action movie and not a Bond film. It's one thing to break convention, but did he even TRY to have sex with Camille? C'mon!
Posted by Jay T.
at November 15, 2008 8:57 AM
comment #4
jesse
says ...
I'm frankly surprised people are complaining about QUANTUM not being particularly Bond.
---SPOILERS if you've never seen a Bond movie---
I mean, dude beds Strawberry Fields within, what, five minutes of meeting her? And parachutes out of a crashing plane? And says stuff to people between jumping onto the hood of their car and shooting them? And blows up the bad guy's gigantic desert fortress? Which the bad guy is going to use to take over Bolivia by controlling its water supply?
And we're getting complaints that it's not Bondian enough?! Would Jason Bourne do any of those things??
Granted, they take the violence in a more severe direction and they deal with Bond being a bit of, as M says, a cold bastard, but I though that's what everyone was complaining about the Brosnan entries lacking.
---END SPOILERS---
Anyway, it's not as smooth and perfectly done as Casino Royale -- I never would've guessed Campbell was that good based on Goldeneye! -- but it's a worthwhile sequel to that movie. And the "nonstop action" stuff is hyperbole. The first thirty to forty minutes are pretty pummeling, but after that there are long stretches of plot/character stuff. Maybe I'm an easy lay, but I think it's still one of the better Bonds I've seen.
Posted by jesse
at November 15, 2008 10:09 AM
comment #5
Pelham123
says ...
"Quantum of Solace" is not as good as "Casino Royale" but it is light years ahead of all the Brosnan & Moore films. Brutal to say the least, but hidden inside all the frenzied action (& cutting) is Bond evolving into the classic character we all know. This one is not so much a sequel as a coda to "Casino Royale".
On another note, the new "Star Trek" trailer almost brought the Cinerama Dome's roof down last night due to the audience's (to say the least) uproarious response. Start counting your money now Paramount.
Posted by Pelham123
at November 15, 2008 10:55 AM
comment #6
crsryan
says ...
The positive reviews for this movie are breathtaking to me. I waited to see it Friday night with an audience and I walked away stunned. It's easily the worst of all the Bond films. At least the late Roger Moore entries were competently shot and edited and had a story that made sense within their own internal logic. Quantum of Solace is so bad that even as a major Bond fan I have no desire to ever see it again.
Fuck Marc Forster.
Posted by crsryan
at November 15, 2008 11:41 AM
comment #7
Pertwillaby
says ...
"but did he even TRY to have sex with Camille? C'mon!" Well, the love of his life died a couple of days ago, i think his behaviour is reasonable...
Posted by Pertwillaby
at November 15, 2008 12:15 PM
comment #8
jse33
says ...
Brutal as in the poorly executed/edited action scenes are brutal on the eyes? Was I the only one who couldn't tell what the hell was going on during the action because the camera was so close-up? Marc Forster sucks at directing action scenes. And this "herky jerky" camera shit has got to end. This Bond film was a little too shaken.
Posted by jse33
at November 15, 2008 1:03 PM
comment #9
corey3rd
says ...
I enjoyed it. Quantum is basically the third act to Casino.
he had no problem banging the red head cause he knew she was part of the company.
This was no Moonraker, Octopussy, View to a Kill.....
Posted by corey3rd
at November 15, 2008 1:06 PM
comment #10
T. S. Idiot
says ...
Quantum isn't bad just bland, nothing memorable about it but Fields' spunkiness. Dull villain, vague threat to the planet.
And what is a luxury hotel doing in the middle of a Bolivian desert? C'mon, Hortense, let's spend our vacation nowhere!
Posted by T. S. Idiot
at November 15, 2008 1:57 PM
comment #11
PastePotPete
says ...
"And what is a luxury hotel doing in the middle of a Bolivian desert? C'mon, Hortense, let's spend our vacation nowhere!"
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/bond/Residencia.html
Posted by PastePotPete
at November 15, 2008 4:20 PM
Post a comment