# Quantum of Solace: # http://digg.com/movies/Quantum_of_Solace_disappoints # 6.May.2009. * -48 diggs +25 / -73 bakkouzbakkouz on 11/18/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (3 replies) Meh.. I never liked Daniel Craig as James Bond. Reply 3 Replies — best has 17 diggs o AmericanParty, on 11/19/2008, -16/+20***** you + bushisadumbass, on 11/19/2008, -18/+7That's classy. Telling a person to ***** off because you disagree with them. Stay classy AmericanParty. + AmericanParty, on 11/19/2008, -3/+15It's as classy as your name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy That should help. + bushisadumbass, on 11/19/2008, -14/+1Well, Bush is a dumbass. What does my name have to do with being classy. Just my opinion about a stupid ass President. o kashk5, on 11/19/2008, -3/+20When I first heard he was going to be Bond when Casino Royale was announced, I wasn't that enthused either. Then I saw the movie and I think he's actually pretty good. Plus, the way Craig plays Bond is more in line with Iam Fleming's novels. o inactive, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1http://www.thejonnyfilm.com/theaters/2008/11/13/qu ... * -25 diggs +7 / -32 inactiveinactive on 11/18/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (1 reply) "[Latest 007 Title] disappoints" Exactly the review I have ever gotten about any new Bond movie. Reply 1 Reply — best has 1 digg o Charlotte_Web, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Well, if you say it enough times, eventually it will end up being true. * -35 diggs +7 / -42 fcrowfcrow on 11/18/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (1 reply) The previous "Bond" movie was disappointing, this one was excellent! Reply 1 Reply — best has 0 diggs o troye, on 11/19/2008, -1/+1You've got it backwards. * +111 diggs +166 / -55 SaitekcSaitekc on 11/18/2008 Wrong, it was great. This guy just doesn't like change. Reply 10 Replies — best has 13 diggs o c010rb1indusa, on 11/19/2008, -5/+18I agree, plus you have to look at it from a 3 movie perspective. The Plot can get a little foggy if you're unfamiliar with the first film I will admit to that, but what the second movie has done is left the door open for a 3rd movie that has a lot of potential. Unfortunately, this movie will probably be overshadowed by Casino Royale, and the upcoming 3rd film, unlike the original Star Wars trilogy in which the second film outshines the other two. It will be more like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy where Towers is easily forgettable when compared to Fellowship and Return of the King. Can't wait for the next bond... + cyberdork, on 11/19/2008, -15/+9That's the whole problem. There SHOULDN'T be a plot we need to try to understand! There should be gadgets, tacky pick up lines and comic relief scenes. Now all we have is one long action sequence. This is not James Bond anymore, but just Jason Bourne's older brother. Ok, I can imagine that all the digg kids who didn't grew up with James Bond think it's a cool movie. But to everybody else it's just a mediocre action movie. My experience is that the people who like the Daniel Craig Bond are the same people who prefer 'National Treasure' over Indiana Jones. No kidding. + Kaptainswanky, on 11/19/2008, -4/+8Perhaps it could just be that the new direction these films have taken are for a more sophisticated and mature audience who don't need to see "futuristic" gadgets that will be obsolete in a few years, or tacky pickup lines. As for comic relief, I found plenty in both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, it's just a bit more underlying, rather than over the top. Oh and National Treasure doesn't have anything on Indy. + FearlessFreep, on 11/19/2008, -1/+6"a more sophisticated and mature audience " 20 years for now, someone's going to be laughing at your idea today of "a sophisticated and mature audience" Tastes change, but they don't really improve (or get worse),they're just different. to think otherwise is just naive arrogance + toxicityj, on 11/19/2008, -6/+2What sad world do you live in where Episode II outshines III, or even I?! Episode II is the biggest pile of ***** known to man kind. + JasonAdams13, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3@toxicityj I think he meant in the original trilogy. + inactive, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1That you change something doesn't mean that it is for the good. Most of the times you alienate some people with those changes. Most of the times they're right. + c010rb1indusa, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1@cyberdorkcyberdork I've seen all the bond films, minus the first Timothy Dalton movie, and I can tell you one thing, while they were entertaining to me growing up, most of the movies, especially the Roger Moore movies are extremely dated and they just seem like the same movie, just change the cars, the girls, and the villains. Casino Royale was edgy and dark, you remember the free runner chase you remember the airport fight, you remember the hotel assassination etc. I know getting old sucks but change is a good thing... + DismantleRepair, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1And by the way, The Two Towers is not "forgettable" at all. + staticneuron, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1@FearlessFreep No, I highly doubt it. What I found to be mature 15 years ago stands true today. I just never expected them to make that change for bond. now that they did i hope they continue. o jmpeagle, on 11/19/2008, -1/+11i don't think they she have switched directors...what was with the whole shaky cam during the action scenes. I loved the action scenes in Casino Royale, but they had nice crisp steady cams. + Qeveren, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Oh, they didn't... I was looking forward to this film, too. Crap. o AndrewDB, on 11/19/2008, -12/+5It was not great. It was Bournd 007: Quantum of Boredom. The Bourne Ultimatum like action / seizure sequences need to go. o honeybrass, on 11/19/2008, -2/+4I agree, I liked the new idea, liked the old bond movies too, but this just brings a new perspective. o GeorgeStone2, on 11/19/2008, -1/+13The bad dude sold water. It's so tame. What happened to blowing up the world? He's basically just the CEO of Evian water. o LacY, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6I liked the movie a lot, but I do agree that there's not really anything that makes it a "Bond" movie. The stereotypical Bond things weren't there (Q, "Bond, James Bond", "shaken not stirred", the over-the-top one-liners, etc). It was basically any other "secret agent" movie, but he happens to have the name James Bond. That said, I still really enjoyed the movie. + bitweever, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6The last two movies have been much closer to the original books, where Bond is not a gadgeted-up super-suave spy, he's a merciless killer. He's a dangerous character. You say the last two movies weren't Bond. I say the previous 18 (or however many there were) were not Bond. o snappleman21, on 11/19/2008, -1/+7What are you guys talking about? This movie IS Bond. You have to realize, that this is a different agent. Bond, James Bond. 007. They're one and the same, a name. Daniel Craig is the new Bond. He's smooth, composed, and less of a pansy (imho). An edgier bond, with a purpose, is much more entertaining. You can't come on here and say he's not Bond. All he needed to get in her pants was a cheesy line about the stationary. He charmed the pants off the girl at the airport when he was blacklisted. o Randki, on 11/19/2008, -4/+0Ptth, this movie sucked. The last movie was soo awesome, and I think all you folks must be so desperate for a good tory that you guys would think the story of a wart on someones ass was interesting. o esc27, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not a James Bond movie buff. I have seen older movies on cable, but the only film I have watched outright before this was Casino Royal. So when I agree it was disappointing I am not complaining about change, and oddly enough neither was the author. Did you see any complaints about the lack of gadgets, typical Bond lines, etc.? No, the author actually says that this is the best acted, James Bond ever, he just didn't like the over dominance of chase scenes at the expense of plot. o Ajajadude, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1It had great stunts and action, but the storyline sucked big time. An "evil" eco-villain who's trying to create his own utility company? That was somewhat anti-climatic. That's my only complaint with the film. * +23 diggs +55 / -32 SpanishMongooseSpanishMongoose on 03/02/2009 Money speaks louder then words, Mr. West. This movie has done very well in box office sales especially with a fall release. Now please Mr. West drink some motor oil before you embarrass yourself some more. Reply 7 Replies — best has 13 diggs o AmericanParty, on 11/19/2008, -7/+4that was AWESOME when he did that. o MrFisty, on 11/19/2008, -1/+11No, Mr West, I don't expect you to like it... I expect you to die! o smcavoy, on 11/19/2008, -9/+3why was there motor oil in a hydrogen powered car? + Lunarbunny, on 11/19/2008, -3/+16Because metal doesn't magically not need lubricant when the fuel is changed. + Grin23, on 11/19/2008, -5/+2hey don't dig him down its a very good question. + crossmr, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4if you're mentally retarded and just had been kicked in the head by a horse yes..yes its a great question. Have you just been kicked in the head Grin23? + DonJuanAussi, on 11/19/2008, -1/+0Lunarbunny You may need to spend more time under the hood. Grease is the preferred lubricant outside of the internal combustion engine. o kinseyincanada, on 11/19/2008, -2/+15im sorry but money does not always equal a great movie, although Quamtum was great, byt before it High School Musical 3 was number one. o DonJuanAussi, on 11/19/2008, -1/+1Considering the blanket viral advertising campaign here on Digg in the past few weeks, they had to have spent a lot of advertising dollars to fill seats. You can always spend PR money to have a great opening weekend... but the audience has the advertising costs hidden from them when the media only reports ticket sales, not the advertising cost. Audiences then go out and tell people if they saw a crappy movie. o codgod04, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3I agree with Kinsey. More to the point.... *I was a contributer to those box office sales.* I paid my hard-earned cash towards it, and had high expectations, given what I saw from Casino Royale. and I thought it was total crap. nothing but explosions, and jokes in scenes that didn't make any sense, and hardly any solid plot to tell.. If there was ever such a thing as a "Michael Bay-ism,", this would be it! this wasn't a spy flick.... this was 2 hours showcasing what would be considered in real life to be a sociopathic individual exacting his revenge. and for the record JDMimpact- Money may speak louder than words, but after some of the reviews going in, they are already losing potential viewers. And I bet almost nobody, when viewing things percentage-wise will feel they need to buy the DVD when it comes out... I know I won't. And neither will the party of 15 friends I took with me that also had high hopes for the film. o openlatenight, on 03/21/2009, -0/+0retard, movie sucked ass * +27 diggs +48 / -21 CentorioCentorio on 11/18/2008 Honestly, I loved this movie, I thought it was SLIGHTLY better than Casino Royal. I think the reason people are hating on it is the lack of Bond'isms (if that's even a word). No "Bond, James Bond" No "Shaken, not stirred" and no Money Penny or Q. I saw past all that because it feels like they rebooted the series in attempt to start making each sequel linked. Eventually Bond will start using his 'isms. Reply 5 Replies — best has 5 diggs o jeffkee, on 11/19/2008, -1/+6The "Shaken, not stirred" line was said by the guy in the plane, when Mathis and Bond was in it. So it was, in a way, said. Although Bond did not say it. I liked the movie overall, but I'm in line with people who miss the classic Bond characteristics. The lack of the "Bond, James Bond" was a loss. It is a long running franchise after all, and it's not Pirates of the Carribean. + gregdigg, on 11/19/2008, -1/+2I think that line has been worn out anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUUq5mRCimo o Katana, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6The reason a lot of stuff is missing because casino royale was set before Dr No, so bond is a young inexperienced 00 agent, he only just got the 007 title at the start of casino royale, quite a lot of people seem to forget all this and then feel disapointed when it's missing. I imagine you'll see more of it in the next film though. I watched all the bond films in the last 2 weeks and i have to say that quantum of solace was an excellent bond film when compared to all the others, maybe a bit too much action and explosions than previous ones but great nonetheless. o jorazzle, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4I am happy the gadgets and crap are gone. So it's not that I miss that. It is possible that even though the elements were right, the movie just wasn't put together well. I like the new direction of the reboot, but I just didn't care what was going on in the last 45 minutes of Quantum. New director needed? Love Craig though. + korvan504521, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1I miss the music though. And I hate shaky cam. o allisonaxe, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4i kind of like that the recipe for a Vesper martini ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesper_(cocktail) ) has replaced the "shaken, not stirred" bit. he told someone specifically how to make this drink in casino royale (and everyone around the table asked for one too) and he mentioned it again in Quantum of Solace. I also loved the nod to goldfinger (spoiler: villain covers a girl in *ahem* black gold and leaves her dead on Bond's bed.) I loved this movie, and based on the fact that me and my friend had to sit in the front row (or else we couldn't have sat together because the theater was packed), I'd say that so did many others. o Eslamicolt3, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5I totally agree, except that Casino Royale did a great job of showing us this unrefined Bond that will grow into those things, while still being the hardened bad ass that Craig brings to the table. But as much fun as I had with Quantum, I felt like we regressed in character development. The balance of action and drama was perfectly walked in Casino, making the few chase scenes more poignant. I have full confidence that the next one will be back on track. Hopefully they scrap the shaky, quick cut editing and go back to what made Casino Royale such an outstanding film. * +30 diggs +39 / -9 inactiveinactive on 11/18/2008 Regardless of how good the most recent James Bond movies were, nonetheless, they were highly needed. Like Star Wars Episode 1-3, the story line had to have a root of some sort. James bond didn't become what he is known to be, like what he is portrayed in the last 20 or so James bond movies out of the blue...or did he? Well these last two movies have established the stage for what should have been accomplished nearly half a decade ago with the initial James bond movies. I am happy with the last two movies because they set the tone for what is to come, James bond with a sh*t load of gadgets and even deeper story lines. Reply 4 Replies — best has 9 diggs o Centorio, on 11/18/2008, -5/+5Agree! o maximilen, on 11/19/2008, -3/+7Bond is pissed off.. A genuinley angry, betrayed and vengance-seeking powerfull spy/killer would act exactly the same as bond did in this flick. THAT's why the movie felt "Bournish." Bond was all business, nothing more, bu should settle nicely back into his "Bondisms" after this his venting. o cypher35, on 11/19/2008, -3/+12Disagree. I didn't need to know Anakin Skywalker was a whiny little kid or that the force is controlled by Midichlorians in order to appreciate the original star wars trilogy... That said, I liked Casino Royale. I didn't really like QoS as much, but it still beat the ***** out of the later Pierce Brosnan efforts, so I'm still on board. o korvan504521, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4Why do some people always need the backstory explained. Does Han Solo need a two hour movie intro so you can understand his motivations? Or can he just be Han Solo and be awesome. As Lucas showed, Prequels are often a damn bad idea, and sometimes jumping into the middle of a story is best, because the mystery is half the fun. + danlowlite, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Han doesn't need a backstory because he already changes in the actual story. Smuggler only for profit, then to actually believing in a cause etc. etc. Bond is just bond no matter what he's in. He doesn't change, he doesn't evolve. His toys get better. He loses a Scottish accent somewhere along the line, but... You could put a suave secret agent in almost any of the movies and the only thing you're really changing is the accent and the agency. The only thing George Lucas "showed" is that he can write, produce, direct, and make a ***** of money with mediocre movies. You are right about starting in the middle, it's a good way to go almost always because most of the time we don't have a catalog of stories about the same character. So, does Bond need a backstory? No, not really. But if you don't want to see it...don't. Of course, that all goes out the window if you pull the "Bond is just a nickname for this particular agent." Then they are all bonds in different ways; this one is just starting out. * +30 diggs +43 / -13 KaiserArnyKaiserArny on 11/18/2008 I personally liked the movie, but was it a Bond film? If you make Superman movie and decide he will not fly anymore, he's going to swim. He won't have a blue suit but a yellow and green. Is it still Superman? Quantum of Solace is a good action movie, except for that first car chase that could give some people a seizure, but there's so many changes that you forget your watching James Bond. Reply 7 Replies — best has 12 diggs o Centorio, on 11/18/2008, -7/+11That's not a fair comparison. It's more like Spiderman 1. Half of the movie he is just Peter Parker. He starts learning his ability and becoming what we know as Spiderman. o techlyc, on 11/19/2008, -1/+13 >> he's going to swim. He won't have a blue suit but a yellow and green AQUAMAN!!! :D + calenerd, on 11/19/2008, -2/+1in a yellow submarine. o maybach, on 11/19/2008, -7/+3you're o spaceman84, on 11/19/2008, -10/+2Wrong. The Bond films have always just made ***** up as they go. There is no established canon as there is for Superman. By your bizarro logic, pretty much all of the Bond films have not been Bond films because they don't adhere to the stories written by Ian Fleming. There is little to no consistency between them aside from a couple of catchphrases that weren't even a great asset to the films. They were a gimmick and part of what made the Moore and Brosnan films a joke. Bond became a walking cliche because he had to spout those particular lines in every single film for small minded people like yourself. And don't get me started on the ridiculous gadgets. They're nothing more than a crutch for writers who are lazy or have no talent. And if Bond is the best spy in the world, he shouldn't have to rely on them either. o Billions, on 11/19/2008, -2/+8"So many changes, " you say? I think it was TOTALLY James Bond: traveling the world, swooning the ladies, thinking on his feet and kicking ass, with some great driving. Little reliance on the gadgets, I really enjoyed it. You know what you might enjoy more if you thought it wasn't "Bond" enough? Dark Knight, now THAT thought it was a James Bond film - from 15 years ago, when they would have tried to make us believe that Timothy Dalton could spot enemies using a cellular phone's microphone. Nossir, this new Bond film has a believability streak that strains the suspension of disbelief FAR less than those before it, and I like Craig's cold Fleming Bond from the pages of the novels. For discussion: While Bond is speaking to Mateas, did I pick up a hint in the new Bond film canon that agents use cover names, like 'James Bond' is a cover name for whoever is MI6's baddest ***** in any given decade? A slight nod, I think, to the fact we've been watching an agent named 'Bond' perpetually pull a Dorian Gray on us since 1962. Eh, maybe that's just me looking for more believability. + Leems, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3Would make sense, especially as theres been quite a few Felix Leiters too. + h4ppydotcom, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4I always thought that "Bond" was the cover-name for whoever was MI6's current 007, and that they had a small number of double-0s floating around. + vertigo32, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3James Bond = Dread Pirate Roberts? It is sensible, but it's not James Bond. + korvan504521, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1At the very least they should have had the Bond music. And they waited for the bullet intro until the end. o bemenaker, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3Have you ever read the books? The reboot of the series is much more true to the books. o wownotagain123, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1car chase = epic win * +15 diggs +21 / -6 kp2575kp2575 on 11/18/2008 I thought it was one of the better action movies I have seen in a long time. The scaffold fight was really entertaining. Reply 2 Replies — best has 5 diggs o mrkmrk, on 11/19/2008, -5/+3Laughing at the CGI was entertaining, at least. o h4ppydotcom, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5It was a good scene, but what is with cutting to a new angle twice a second? Same with the first car chase... I think that the scaffolding scene would have looked amazing with a single camera, panning and zooming as they decended the tower, with an occasional cut to a detail shot (to cover up the joins when they needed to do a reset/retake). Of course, if they could film it all in one take then you'd *really* be on to something that looks (and is) amazing! * inactiveinactive on 11/19/2008 This comment has been deleted. Show (2 replies) Reply 2 Replies — best has 2 diggs o Garofoli, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2I like the part where we saw that girl's vag. o Celebrimbor, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1wait, what? where, when? * -5 diggs +5 / -10 jolinarodriguezjolinarodriguez on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (1 reply) It's a nice movie full of action Reply 1 Reply — best has 2 diggs o CannedMango, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2and actors * 0 diggs +13 / -13 McMaster88McMaster88 on 11/19/2008 quantum was not the greatest bond movie I have seen... Reply 1 Reply — best has -7 diggs o AmericanParty, on 11/19/2008, -9/+2that answer is only acceptable is that movie you are referring to is Casino Royale * -3 diggs +10 / -13 BigDog01BigDog01 on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (2 replies) Really now? All my friends said it was a really good movie. Reply 2 Replies — best has 2 diggs o smcavoy, on 11/19/2008, -8/+3get new friends. o h4ppydotcom, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2All my friends said it was the worst Bond ever. However, I enjoyed it. Perhaps the low expectations I had made it seem better (and their high expectations made it seem worse to them). * +2 diggs +11 / -9 QuailOfDoomQuailOfDoom on 11/19/2008 This movie was great; the story, the way it was filmed, everything. Although I love all the older Bond movies, it's good to see a film with a splash more substance. Some of these reviewers don't respond to change very well. Reply * -5 diggs +4 / -9 hollywoodphonyhollywoodphony on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show Couldn't be as bad as Live and Let Die. Though that guy's head blowing up like a balloon was pretty great. Reply * -9 diggs +5 / -14 syinnersyinner on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show It's now just another action film, so disappointing! Reply * -7 diggs +10 / -17 TruEKumaTruEKuma on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show Movie was great. Topic Buried Reply * -7 diggs +2 / -9 doctordbxdoctordbx on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (1 reply) I'm sorry but were people expecting an Oscar worthy movie here? It's ***** James Bond... guns, sex and a formulaic plot. Duh! Reply 1 Reply — best has -1 diggs o calenerd, on 11/19/2008, -3/+2There's almost no sex unfortunately, and the guns were little. + Pixelante, on 11/19/2008, -0/+0"and the guns were little." Do you expect Bond to carry a Minimi under his jacket? * +9 diggs +22 / -13 SyntraFTWSyntraFTW on 11/19/2008 Buried as inaccurate. Reply * +42 diggs +45 / -3 Bic823Bic823 on 11/19/2008 Definitely liked Casino Royale better, this one felt more like a Bourne ripoff, what with the chase scenes and the shaky camera. It got pretty bad at some points, particularly the on-foot chases and fistfights. Reply 4 Replies — best has 3 diggs o Pacotheparrot, on 11/19/2008, -8/+3Agreed, I like the Bourne series but they get kind of repetitive. James Bond has more depth than Jason Borne imo. o emptyo, on 11/19/2008, -2/+5Agreed 100%. o inactive, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2The second unit directors for Quantum were all the same second unit directors from the Bourne movies... can you say 1 trick ponies? o Klowner, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1I hate action sequences shot so darn close-up though, can't even tell if there are jump cuts or anything, I find it disorienting * -1 diggs +14 / -15 TheFoshizzlerTheFoshizzler on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show "overly elaborate and excruciatingly long plane chase" No. Fail. Reply * +25 diggs +29 / -4 PacotheparrotPacotheparrot on 11/19/2008 While I enjoyed it, I feel the reviewer's critiques hit the nail on the head. It was a good movie but it needed more time for "Bond to be Bond". I think that's what made Casino Royale so great, the action scenes were short and intense (with the exception of the airport sequence but that was more suspense anyway) which allowed Craig to flesh out the character and give him some...well character. I hope the next one gets a new director and goes back to the Casino Royale model. Reply 2 Replies — best has 1 digg o captaindigger, on 11/19/2008, -4/+5I disagree, we know who Bond is why do we need that extra hour every time trying to make us believe it. I think this movie did what it had to do without the need to flesh out the character again. They have been doing that for the last 40 years if you don't know the Bond character by now then your not a fan anyway. I like the direction the movies have been going with and I think they fit well with the new Bond. o ness0013, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1"I think that's what made Casino Royale so great, the action scenes were short and intense (with the exception of the airport sequence but that was more suspense anyway)" You and I were watching different movies. What about the opening chase scene in Casino Royale where hes chasing the bomb maker? What about the end chase scene where hes chasing after Vesper? Those scenes were not short by any definition of the word. I can agree that there was more time for "Bong to be Bond", but to say that Casino Royale achieved that because the action scenes were shorter is just plain false. * -2 diggs +5 / -7 tuxidomasxtuxidomasx on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show i liked it. would like to see more character development over the next few movies tho. i'm hoping daniel craig's movies show him gradually shifting from aggressive and action-ny to more smooth-spy-with-cool-gadgets-y. (i can adjectify or verbify almost any word or phrase by adding a 'y' at the end) Reply * +11 diggs +15 / -4 maliathmaliath on 11/19/2008 Casino Royale was clever and unexpected. This Bond movie was the same hashed out action scenes with predictable results we've seen from other thriller movies (see: Bourne Ultimatum). By the end, I didn't care how the goon died or if Bond got his revenge. Reply 1 Reply — best has 3 diggs o inactive, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3So this movie was shaken, but nor stirred? (too much shaky cam reference) * -6 diggs +1 / -7 PunchcardzPunchcardz on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show "we've grown used to Bond's adventures containing more wit and less punch." Ah, "wit". Is that what I was seeing in those last few bond movies before the reboot. :/ Reply * +4 diggs +11 / -7 bigfreakinlionbigfreakinlion on 11/19/2008 Really, was anyone actually genuinely scared of the movie's villain or his wigged gay counterpart? I spent the entire time sitting there thinking "this is a guy I could probably take in a fight". Then he picks up that ax and starts screaming like a girl every time he swings it. Just lame. Reply * +5 diggs +8 / -3 bushisadumbassbushisadumbass on 11/19/2008 The thing that I hated the most was the main villain, Dominic Greene. He seemed like he was just worthless and did not look tough at all. I liked the action sequences and the Bond girl Olga K. She is very pretty ;D Reply 2 Replies — best has 2 diggs o korvan504521, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah, the General was a better bad guy. Greene was just annoying. + Napiertt, on 11/19/2008, -1/+1Nah, Greene was good. Nasty, manipulative, amoral bastard o newbis, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1No offense, but I think you've missed the point of Bond villains. The masterminds aren't supposed to be tough and scary: They're supposed to be... Well, masterminds. They hire muscle. They are too busy scheming and getting rich to ever go to the gym. Was Le Chiffre a strong-looking guy? No. Would I be more scared of him with an axe? Probably yes. Anyways, that's just my two cents. * -6 diggs +3 / -9 vanxmanvanxman on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (3 replies) Come on... I likes the movie as an action movie, but lets face it, you do expect some "Bond, James Bond" thrown into a Bond movie!!! And yes, even with the cheese... This was like seeing a Bourne movie full of space-aliens... Should be fun, but it's not what you expect of a Bourne movie... And in Quantum, WTF is up with the baddie??? Whooooo, hoarding water. OK, can see that. But the sum total of this whimp's plan is to sell it back to Bolivia. AT DOUBLE THE PRICE!!! What about world domination? Blowing up Earth? For F's sake, even evaporating a small country would be good, but DOUBLING THE COST OF BOLIVIA'S WATER UTILITIES... FAAAAAAAAAAAAARK'N STUPID!!! Reply 3 Replies — best has 3 diggs o bigfreakinlion, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4To be fair, the IMF and World Bank do this quite frequently. They fund a country but insist on control of utilities, to be sold privately at a high rate. o Billions, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3Two things for you... 1) Watch the documentary FLOW, out on DVD soon, see how serious the water supply situation can get thanks to actual companies doing what is described in this film, and 2) typing spoilers in your comment is an amateur move. o Pixelante, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1The whole "my name is Bond, James Bond" originates as a pun because that's how he introduces himself in Dr No after he gets the "Trench, Sylvia Trench" from across the table. Check out the novels, he doesn't introduce himself in that way. * -5 diggs +0 / -5 b33xb33x on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show I think its nice, like 7.5/10 nice. And maybe one of the main reason people feel disappointed is because it is about Bond BEFORE he became the James Bond we familiar of. Maybe later movies will further elaborate how he transform. Not like Craig Daniel can't do that. Reply * +7 diggs +8 / -1 DonCreechDonCreech on 11/19/2008 Since this film has a good chance of becoming the top grossing Bond installation in the series, we're probably witnessing the end of an era for the old formula. Personally, I have mixed feelings about that, but then again, I'm not the head of a movie studio. Reply 1 Reply — best has 1 digg o WiLLGT09, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1I have to agree. while I haven't see Quantum yet, I found Casino Royale excruciatingly boring (enough with the damn card game, get to the actual spying, witty sayings, and gadgets!). Sorry, but the old formula was entertaining, and I hope this new one can live up to its predecessor. * -3 diggs +5 / -8 MrFistyMrFisty on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (2 replies) Since when has a Bond film ever been "sophisticated"? Reply 2 Replies — best has 2 diggs o V-Mob, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Since Roger Moore and Sean Connery brought class into it. o o0joshua0o, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Bond himself is supposed to sophisticated, debonair, suave... I think a lot of the criticism aimed at the film is from people who were disappointed when they saw that those character traits were lacking. + kocurejd, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Actually, Bond was never meant to be debonair or suave. Sophisticated perhaps, but he was never meant to be some smoothe pretty boy. Go read an Ian Flemming novel. + thepotatoman, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2I think you need to realize after 40 years of movie bond acting that way, movie bond has established himself as a separate character entirely. So yes, he is meant to be debonair and suave. Besides the whole hardened action hero has been done hundreds of times already. It saddens me that one of the more unique characters in the genre has turned so un-unique. * +4 diggs +8 / -4 inactiveinactive on 11/19/2008 There were too many action sequences not enough spy film and figuring out. and Bourne Franchise to me replace James Bond as the goto Secret agent film for the last decade, and the realistic plotline was cool just doesn't fit in the Bond mode,When I go to see a Bond film I should expect over the top,I didn't get that. Reply * +1 digg +7 / -6 zsaviorzsavior on 11/19/2008 I don't like the new Bond films either. It is just an action movie now, nothing to do with being a spy at all. Reply 1 Reply — best has -4 diggs o Pixelante, on 11/19/2008, -4/+0You don't know jack about "being a spy", because it happens that "being a spy" consists in a terribly boring life constantly punctuated by the fear of having your cover blown, telling lies to everybody including those you care for, and having the moral compass of a braindead ant. And at the end of it all, an unmarked grave if you're unlucky and retirement in some place you couldn't care for and nobody knows you if you're lucky, living off the rest of your days praying Nature will take your life before the relative of someone you had assassinated, disappeared or tortured comes round your house with a sharp implement. * -5 diggs +3 / -8 D3koyD3koy on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show the reviews I've been hearing are "i'm afraid of change so this sucked", "what more do you want from a bond movie", and "meh, I guess some things blew up...".....so yes, I'll be seeing it this weekend Reply * +8 diggs +12 / -4 maximilenmaximilen on 11/19/2008 Bond is pissed off.. A genuinley angry, betrayed and vengance-seeking powerfull spy/killer would act exactly the same as bond did in this flick. THAT's why the movie felt "Bournish." Bond was all business, but should settle nicely back into his Bond-isms in future films. :) Reply * +4 diggs +8 / -4 n0c0ntr0ln0c0ntr0l on 11/19/2008 It was no doubt a good movie. But it wasn't a Bond movie. Reply * -1 diggs +4 / -5 mr5150mr5150 on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show Craig is the best Bond since Connery period. Craig is the brawling pitbull agent which given time will be introduced to sophistication however for the moment i'm loving the simplified go for the throat killer. Reply * +2 diggs +5 / -3 n8o8n8o8 on 11/19/2008 I miss the gadgets. I touch surface PC I see on youtube, an wrist watch that conceals a remotely controlled drone that infiltrates an undersea lair I want to see in Bond films. Reply * -5 diggs +9 / -14 ortucisortucis on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show This review disappoints, punch the reviewer. Reply * -5 diggs +1 / -6 Jacs7777Jacs7777 on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show I really enjoyed it. It wasn't as good as Casino Royale but I wasn't expecting it to be. Great flick but as usual the critics criticise. I expect nothing less from them these days. Reply * -5 diggs +4 / -9 calenerdcalenerd on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show (1 reply) Who cares? As long as the Bond girl, Olga Kurylenko in this case, is freaking hot, I've got nothing bad to say =/ Reply 1 Reply — best has -1 diggs o Brad324, on 11/19/2008, -3/+2just stay home and watch porn then * -5 diggs +5 / -10 Bentley31Bentley31 on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show this dude can suck my bean. the movie showed bond being smooth and suave in little ways that you had to pay attention to notice. way to write like a bitch for your wanky college paper. Reply * -6 diggs +3 / -9 PusodPusod on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show I guess he didn't vote for Obama then. WACKA-WACKA-WACKA! Reply * +1 digg +4 / -3 DrunkenBarneyDrunkenBarney on 11/19/2008 Agree with the topic... too many scenes are silly... just as the hole plot... shows again that much money and good actors are not enough to create an epic movie Reply * -4 diggs +5 / -9 StrongwingsStrongwings on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show Buried because it rocked. Reply * +3 diggs +9 / -6 chkdg8chkdg8 on 11/19/2008 Again, more unnecessary criticism from people who need a little extra traffic to their site. After watching Jamie Kennedy's new documentary; Heckler, I now look at online critics as the fall of man. Heckler trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvZNSLFO72k Look, the Batman franchise was completely in the ***** until WB decided to take a risky chance and revamp the whole thing. Guess what, it worked. If you look at the past Bond films of the late eighties, nineties and early 2000s, they were "jumping the shark" bigtime with silly plots, unrealistic "PG" killings and cheesy ass one liners. I don't mean to piss on anyone's intelligence or Bond fanboyism but just in case you didn't know or somewhat forgot along with your buttery ass stale popcorn and outdated Twizzlers, here's a newsflash: James Bond is a hardcore, former SAS soldier, super spy mutha ***** assassin who's motivated by his duty and won't think twice about taking your life away in the name of the Crown. Just move back in with your parents, crawl into your little den and watch Agent Cody Banks if you expect James Bond movies to go back to how they used to be. Reply 3 Replies — best has 2 diggs o Cerebron, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Heckler looked cool until they showed Uwe Boll. o fastballbc, on 11/19/2008, -1/+2Bravo, I completely agree, not to mention this is a very funny post. o WileEPeyote, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1"James Bond is a hardcore, former SAS soldier" Did they change that in the last movie? I must have missed it. He used to be an ex Naval officer. * -6 diggs +3 / -9 rezivorrezivor on 11/19/2008 Below viewing threshold. Show It was great- That guy is a ***** pansie Reply * +9 diggs +14 / -5 kinseyincanadakinseyincanada on 11/19/2008 Quantum of Solace was not a great Bond movie, it was a great Action movie. Reply