QUANTUM OF SOLACE - Shortest Bond Ever

Message

AndyDursin · #1 Post by **AndyDursin** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:55 am

I'm curious what Marc Forster, kind of an odd choice to begin with, has done with QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Here's an interview where we find out the new movie is 100 minutes (!) minus credits, easily making it the shortest 007 ever, plus have comments from Forster where he says he wants to go back to "something small."

It's also stated that CASINO had more "reflective moments"...all of which kinda adds up, maybe, to a movie that might disappoint SOME viewers. We'll obviously see, but the short running time and some of these comments are a bit on the curious side.

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/09/22/d ... -questions

mkaroly · #2 Post by **mkaroly** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:05 pm

Maybe it just means the film is non-stop action a la the BOURNE series. I'll have to wait and see whether or not the film works for me. I like the character development in Bond films (as far as that goes), and frankly, I liked the reflective moments in CR. So I hope they didn't sacrifice character for action...part of the reason I want to see it is the character of Bond (and how Craig and the writers interpret him).

Eric W. · #3 Post by **Eric W.** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm

I've seen plenty of good movies around this time frame.

AndyDursin · #4 Post by **AndyDursin** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:42 pm

Eric W. wrote:I've seen plenty of good movies around this time frame.

It's a first for this series though...which has always prided itself on character development and not just action.

Will be interesting to see. I'm not passing judgment -- but I do find it odd considering the traditions of 007 and some of the comments about how much action is in it.

Eric W. · #5 Post by **Eric W.** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:45 pm

AndyDursin wrote:
Eric W. wrote:I've seen plenty of good movies around this time frame.
It's a first for this series though...which has always prided itself on character development and not just action.

Will be interesting to see. I'm not passing judgment -- but I do find it odd considering the traditions of 007 and some of the comments about how much action is in it.

Fair enough. I share your concerns but overall I'm still looking forward to it.

Monterey Jack · #6 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:51 pm

AndyDursin wrote:
Eric W. wrote:I've seen plenty of good movies around this time frame.
It's a first for this series though...which has always prided itself on character development and not just action.

It's extremely disconcerting to learn that QOS will run a full FORTY MINUTES shorter than CR.

Even though, historically, most Bond movies tend to run a little too long (even the good ones), slashing the latest down to ninety minutes (sans opening titles and end credits) smacks of the Broccolis getting jittery about losing the ADD Brosnan crowd who grew fidgety during the "boring", character building scenes in CR. While I don't mind seeing a little more action than what was in CR, I also don't want to see a return to the joyless freneticism of the last two Brosnan films. Hopefully we'll see an extended DVD cut with all the "boring" bits put back in. Hey, The Dark Knight ran 2 1/2 hours, and that didn't stop it from becoming the second-highest grossing film of all time, so there's no reason to think that 007 needs to run considerably under two hours to get an audience (especially considering the well-earned audience goodwill generated by CR).

Eric W. · #7 Post by **Eric W.** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:00 pm

Monterey Jack wrote:
AndyDursin wrote:
Eric W. wrote:I've seen plenty of good movies around this time frame.
It's a first for this series though...which has always prided itself on character development and not just action.
It's extremely disconcerting to learn that QOS will run a full FORTY MINUTES shorter than CR. Even though, historically, most Bond movies tend to run a little too long (even the good ones), slashing the latest down to ninety minutes (sans opening titles and end credits) smacks of the Broccolis getting jittery about losing the ADD Brosnan crowd who grew fidgety during the "boring", character building scenes in CR. While I don't mind seeing a little more action than what was in CR, I also don't want to see a return to the joyless freneticism of the last two Brosnan films. Hopefully we'll see an extended DVD cut with all the "boring" bits put back in. Hey, The Dark Knight ran 2 1/2 hours, and that didn't stop it from becoming the second-highest grossing film of all time, so there's no reason to think that 007 needs to run considerably under two hours to get an audience (especially considering the well-earned audience goodwill generated by CR).

I hear ya!

JSWalsh · #8 Post by **JSWalsh** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:10 am

35 minutes of it is a pre-title sequence.

Just kidding...

Monterey Jack · #9 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:01 am

JSWalsh wrote:35 minutes of it is a pre-title sequence.

Just kidding...

The TWINE teaser seemed nearly that long.

John Johnson · #10 Post by **John Johnson** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:16 pm

Monterey Jack wrote:
JSWalsh wrote:35 minutes of it is a pre-title sequence.

Just kidding...
The TWINE teaser seemed nearly that long.

With the exception of Robert Carlyle and Denise Richards, I quite enjoyed the movie.

AndyDursin · #11 Post by **AndyDursin** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:40 pm

John Johnson wrote:
Monterey Jack wrote:
JSWalsh wrote:35 minutes of it is a pre-title sequence.

Just kidding...
The TWINE teaser seemed nearly that long.
With the exception of Robert Carlyle and Denise Richards, I quite enjoyed the movie.

I've never been a fan of that one myself.

Monterey Jack · #12 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:04 pm

TWINE isn't terrible, exactly, but it's very, very bland. What kind of 007 movie climaxes with him and the baddie kicking each other in a cramped, flooding submarine control room?

And the less said about Denise Richards, the better. The only Brosnan films I really liked were Goldeneye and TND.

mkaroly · #13 Post by **mkaroly** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:04 pm

I never bought Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist (or whatever she was)...she was a detriment to that picture and interfered with what I thought was a pretty edgy story. I like the movie in general, though with Richards it gets hard to watch sometimes.

AndyDursin · #14 Post by **AndyDursin** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:21 pm

TOMORROW NEVER DIES has probably held up the best of the Brosnans -- it's tightly directed, has some nice chase scenes, doesnt run over two hours (but still has enough character stuff for it to work), and has Arnold's best Bond score, at least for me. It still has some issues and a lame submarine ending (where have we seen that before? lol) but it works for the most part.

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH didn't click for me, in fact I rank it as the lowest of the Brosnan films. The script fumbled all kinds of opportunities -- M's kidnapping was treated like a throwaway! -- and the ending was a total wash. At least DIE ANOTHER DAY had a decent villain and held up for about two-thirds before falling apart, and GOLDENEYE was alright, though I confess that score is so awful that it prevents me from ever wanting to see it again.

Monterey Jack · #15 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:41 pm

DAD is the WORST...BOND...EVER.