I just have three words for anyone who didn’t like ‘Quantum of Solace” – read the books! The character James Bond was never supposed to be a wisecracking nice guy. He is vicious, sexist and more than a little mean. Connery’s Bond was initially that way but the Bond of movies became a parody of the true character. I hope we never see another hokey gadget in a Bond movie. There was a time when I stopped watching Bond films because they became spoofs of spy movies. Today’s Bond is much more grounded in reality, from the situations to the fight scenes, to his physique. If you truly miss some of the old Bond movies, just rent a DVD or look at Saturday morning cartoons.

I don’t know…I think the Bond series has run its course. I just don’t buy the “new” people they pick to carry on the “classic” feel of Bond. I am not sure you can get any better or anywhere near equal to Connery, or even Moore. The new ones seem too plastic or like they are “acting” suave and sophisticated. The old ones just oozed it naturally.

It is like trying to re-create a modern day Cary Grant.

I LOVED this movie. I am bias because I am a huge James Bond fanatic. I think some of the responses from previous people are correct but there are some that simply are not; they’re opinion. Now, the first thing to realize about this movie and Casino Royale is that they are the first Bond movies; even before Sean Connery. These two movies and the next two are in the first series and there were no gadgets. Gadgets were introduced later. Now, Sean Connery is and will always be the first bond but if they had done the first four movies in the sixties which would include Casion Royale and Quantum, there would have not been any gadgets. The reason for this is because the character is meant to be tough and very cold at the beginning and then once he gets comfortable in his role, there is the introduction of gadgets. I think that Daniel Craig is a phenomenal Bond. Pierce Brosnan is a great Bond but there is no way he would have been able to pull it off in these two movies. Daniel Craig is much more tough and stoic than say another actor would have been. Overall, great movie and looking foward to the next two.

J.R.

The Trek trailer has only made me more frantic in anticipation of the movie. The only bummer is that the release originally scheduled for December 2008 was deferred to May 2009 — what???

Daniel Craig is a cool cat. I like him better as Bond than Brosnan. Casino Royale was fantastic! Mr. Connery has always been my favorite 007, but Mr. Craig is catching up fast. The preview of Solace looks great, however I am waiting for the DVD release, since I’d rather own it. Glad to see its #1 in American theaters though.

Also it would be nice if they stopped double dipping the DVD/Blu releases every couple of years.

Oh, if you havent yet seen the preview of the new “Star Trek” remake, you need to find it on-line. Comes out in May and it looks HOT !!

I was twelve when I saw my first Bond movie and from there I have read every book and seen all the movies. Each person that played Bond brought you a different style and feel to the character.
When Casino Royale came out I had mixed feelings from the trailers but when I actually saw the movie I thought that it was a good adaption to modern times.
I saw Solace on opening day I was excited and by the end of the movie I was very disappointed, It became a action movie with too much choppy action; running, car, boat plane; the only thing missing was a space shuttle. The story was thin and I was surprised that the word “Specter” did not come up.
I really hope that they remember to actually have a story and some of Bonds baser characteristics back in the next.

Whats sad is Austin Powers is a better ‘Bond’ then the real ‘Bond’ at this point. Without the trademark characteristics of James Bond, the new movies (21 and 22) are just like any other action movie. Was the concept stale? I don’t know. If it was stale how come they made 19 movies using the formula. People still showed up to watch it didn’t they? I’m willing to bet within a couple more Bond movies the type of ‘Bond’ that we know will be back. Untill then I’m hoping for more Austin Powers to get my ‘Bond’ Fix….sad isn’t it?

Gotta say…I had no interest in the new “Trek” until…that Trailer! Wow! It’s always exciting when someone takes what sounds like a strange idea and turns it into something really good! Went through the same thing with “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.” I think that turned out to be a show that nobody expected!

OK – Now go show your kids PipersPicks.TV !!!!!

It’s not Bond. I like Craig as an actor, but the scripts are not James Bond, as Ian Flemming wrote them. Nor are they a continuation of the previous Bond franchise character. It’s a new Age, sensative bond character. In Casino Royale, he actually said he “loved” a woman. Give me a break. this is Bond (Outside of Her majesty’s secret service”). And no gadgets, no sex.
- Again, its not Bond.

Sean Connery spoiled everyone by protraying the best original James Bond and that can never change no matter who plays that character.

Remember, Casino Royale is one of the first Bond stories. So a guy named James Bond was not a 007 yet. This new movie, which starts minutes after the the other one-so same-day, portrays a guy who just made the 007 status. Daniel Craig stated that the phrase “Bond, James Bond” didn’t sound right in this one, too early in the Bond story.
The gadgets and ‘BondStuff’ will come in the next installations. As for Quantum, I really liked it. To continue off the last one and conclude that story, I though was great. Good action, does his own stunts, and not a lot of hokey stuff, just good old action. Keep it going Daniel Craig, I think he is the best bond since Sean Connery.

The Trek preview looked awful…
It seems that the usual Classic Star Trek strengths of dialog and story…have been replaced by CGI explosions, a cast straight outta The O.C., and a complete shredding of the established Trek timeline.
Star Trek for the A.D.D. generation.

LOVE Daniel Craig! Casino Royale was fantastic, and better than this one – more twists, more humor and wit, more brain not just brawn. There is no question Craig is the best Bond ever – he makes the rest of them ( except Connery) look downright pompous and effeminate. So Craig carries this movie and its very good – despite a rather dull Bond Girl in Olga.

Star Trek will be hot. I’ve been a fan since the next generation, and this reboot seems amazing. JJ Abrams will not let us down.

I like Daniel Craig’s version of James Bond much better than the past few pansies that were playing the part. He is much more physical, heartless towards the enemies yet has a tender side for women as should be. I look forward to the next movie.

Disappointing film…..the anti-climax after a super “Casino Royale”. When will the directors realize that formulas that are successful work for a reason…..in this case: lots of gadgets and beautiful women has widespread appeal. Its not that complicated…..if I want to see Bourne or DieHard I know where to go. James Bond is great….dont isolate the hard core fans.

Interestingly……Dark Knight (which was well acted) also strayed from the BATMAN formula and has not been well received by fans (too violent for small kids / far from the comics original personas).

Bottom line: If it ain’t broke….dont fix it.

The direction for these new Bond movies is exciting. The action fits the current trend (see Bourne series). Now, our hero has cemented his relationship with M, and proven his value to the agency. It has taken two movies to get to know this new direction. The toys and women will come in time, and will no longer be a gimmick. Before Craig Daniels version of Bond, I felt the previous 5 or more films had been absurd. I had given up on the franchise. Don’t you think the new tech (and introduction to Q) will now meet our expectations, in a more realist medium? Now that he has Vesper behind him, he will relax more into his bedroom charm? (I would bet a relationship with Money Penny is next)… Be patient, and enjoy the ride. We are finally getting to know the back story. Let it evolve.

And, yes, the new Star Trek will be epic. But, this will also be a new direction for the franchise. Don’t expect to re-visit the 70’s. I just hope this movie (and Twilight) don’t become too ‘WB’ in gloss and sex appeal. These are multiple movie story-lines, so give them a chance.

with movies now $12 in New York, I’m not even going. LOWER THE PRICES!!

Until these guys realize there’s a recession out there, I ain’t goin’

For all the people who say its not Bond, your right, its not the Bond you knew. On top of that. These two films are the creation of James Bond. Note in the first film, you don’t get the 007 music until the end. In this movie, you don’t get the traditional Bond open shot until the end. These two movies are about the evolution of James Bond into James Bond.

He was burned by falling in love in the first movie. He was bent on revenge for losing her in this one. This movie clears both of those arcs and leaves you with a James Bond who is likely not to fall in love again; but will do what he needs to in order to get the job done. I am sure you will get you sexual escapades in the future films. As far as the gadgets, If that cell phones ability was not a gadget, I don’t know what was.

This was becoming James Bond. I expect even more evolution in the next film. It is nice to see him become Bond and not just be Bond.

Unfortunately seeing Quantum of Solace confirmed my fears about the movie not living up to Casino Royale. Long actions sequences and short dialogues provide enough entertainment to sit through the first viewing, but leave you walking out wondering how you will be able to watch it again. Without ruining the plot for anyone, the villain and sought-after prize (Casino Royale – Winning the Poker Game for $100MM) lacked respectively, the necessary hatred and desire from the audience. Even with low expectations, I walked out of the movie disappointed. Basically on par with Pierce Brosnan’s last Bond flick, Die Another Day, without the overwhelming smugness.

Hmm, maybe I’m the first to say so, but I thought the new Trek trailer was really lame. The acting was horrendous! Yikes. I think it looks like a dog so far. Like the cop on the we-saw-the-floating-vehicle-in-Star-Wars-in-the 70’s (well not a motor cycle but maybe an impulse engine cycle) cycle asking the kid that flips out of the car his name. “James Tiberius Kirk”. Yuck that was badly done. And the dude from Heroes as Spock. Disa(yawn)pointing. Another thing that bothers me is that William Shatner has brown eyes. this new dude has blue. they could’ve at least given him colored contact lenses. or maybe that is a twist in the plot. how kirk’s eye color changed. anyhow, I’m a way back star trek fan, and this looked like maple syrup.

I like the Bond films. Much more gritty and much less stupid and ridiculous.

I am looking forward to the new Star Trek movie – it could be the best one yet. I’ve always wanted a real director to make a Trek movie. I would have preferred Ridley Scott or Francis Ford Copolla, but JJ Abrams did a good job on MI:3. Much better than the first 2 MI movies.

I think the fact that so many people are talking about the Bond movies again is a sure sign it’s on its way back.

To me Craig is not my ideal Bond. Ever since Sean Connery, they just can’t find someone to do it right. To me Craig tries to hard and I can see right through it. He’s not sexy and why sign up for a movie (Casino Royale) that was done right to begin with. Give me a break. I have no interest in seeing Quantum of Solace.

As for Star Trek….the trailer is awesome! I can’t wait til May 2009. I like the fact that they are doing the movie more like a prequel. The T.V. series already had the characters established and we really didn’t know how they all came together. This movie is original and will let us see our favorite character in their youth. Before Kirk sleeps with green women. LOL!

has anyone read the book casino royale? if anything the 21st and 22nd movie portray bond better than most of the older ones. solace was very action packed but i think that the story was still a good continuation of a great adaption of the book casino royale. definately one of the best bonds in my opinion.

Finally…Trek is back! I’ve been a fan since the very first episode in 1966. My son has never been without Star Trek in some form. I just hope JJ and crew will do it justice and the fans will support it…May it never end!!

I loved QoS. This is what a Bond movie should be. The franchise had deteriorated into a parody with the silly gadgets, the innuendo and the eye candy women. I love QoS, but would suggest that you watch Casion Royale on DVD before watching QoS since the story line continues. As for Jon who is missing Roger Moore, I feel sorry that you have such a bad taste!

Craig, as Bond, is good, but as other have mentioned, no real chemistry between him and the female lead, and a fairly wishy-washy villian.

Also, what is it these days with films that spend so much time setting up elaborate stunts and action sequences but shoot it so close with a purposely shaky camera (I didn’t look but I bet there’s a credit for “camera shaking grip” in the credits) and then cut it so frenetically that you cannot follow, or get into the sequence?

Directors: Digital editing tools have revolutionized the industry but just because you can have an entire sequence made of one second (or less) shots, does not mean you should. It takes you out of the movie.

Count me as disappointed.

I have to agree with Kevin, it just doesn’t feel like Bond. I’m a little biased b/c I haven’t been a fan of Daniel Craig from the moment they picked him to replace Brosnan. I read the books and I think that Bond is supposed to be sexist and macho and this new Bond isn’t that all. He’s sensitive and only hooked up with one girl the entire movie, and this entire movie was still based on the girl he was obsessed with during Casino Royale. The James Bond we know and love wouldn’t dwell on just one girl, especially a dead one. There was a barely-there plotline that wasn’t even resolved except that everybody was dead. While most will agree Sean Connery was the best Bond, get over it. He stopped playing Bond 20 years ago, somebody was going to have to replace him eventually to keep the franchise up. I just wish they had chosen someone who was more charasmatic and not so flat. Craig has no personality as Bond, he barely speaks and the only thing that gives us an insight to the character that is Bond is how the other characters talk about him and how they are trying to make up for his shortcomings.

So you’re going to Austin Powers for your “Bond fix” because the new ones aren’t “gadgety” enought for you? Ian Fleming’s concept of the prototypical British superagent is and always has been a wild fantasy. The John LeCarre’ version of the prototypical British spy is and always has been so spot-on that it makes Fleming’s version look like an Austin Powers spoof. Which is why hollywood-ized Fleming version had to change. It was becoming too much like Austin Powers. Enough already with the gadgets, clever and witty one-liners, leggy but deadly bimbos, ridiculously eccentric criminal master-minds who are all but invisible to everyone but Bond and MI6. C’mon, did you ever really believe that Roger Moore could be taken seriously as 007? One has to suspend one’s common sense to enjoy any Bond movie, but these recent versions were way beyond that. The franchise was becoming a cartoon and only a stone’s throw away from becoming more like the Austin Power movies that was spoofing the real thing. They had to change and I’m glad. Go back and view Dr. No and From Russia With Love. As ridiculous as those were, they were closer to the new Daniel Craig flics than they are to the Roger Moore/Timothy Dalton/Pierce Brosnan versions. Seriously.

My wife became a fan of Bond films when she watched Casino Royale.

We watched the Brosnan films. As she watched the opening credits for Goldeneye, she was shocked to see the naked women.

I quickly explained that they do that for every film. To which, she pointed out: “They didn’t for Casino Royale.”

As we watched the introduction for Casino Royale it made it clear to me the difference, although a subtle one.

The title sequence signaled a new day for Bond.

And then I saw the opening titles for Quantum of Solace. And they chose to put bring back the women.

Although it’s a subtle change, I do feel like they have tried to capitulate to the backlash that their changes to the sub-genre of film that Bond has created for itself.

I personally thought both films were brilliant in how they chose to either put a twist on the conventions and icons of a “Bond” film, or to eliminate some altogether.

For instance, we have the “mission briefing” scene in every film. Where Bond goes to see M and have the plot of the film explained to him.

Well in Casino Royale he breaks into M’s flat and steals the information he needs. So much more interesting than “here’s a manila folder with who you need to shoot.”

And then Q… Played by the stalwart Desmond Llewelyn for 18 of the 22 films.

I loved the character and the interactions between Bond and Q. Even John Cleese’s late replacement as “R” or “Q” was very funny.

But when the new filmmakers decided to make the story less… well… a caricature of itself. They had to cut it.

I understand the reason and I agree with it 100%.

Long live the new Bond. Bring on the next one.

Just need to mention that the two new films set up the revival of BOND there will be new re-makes of the Bond films. He will get his licence to kill in the next film which I expect to be “DR NO”

If anyone is interested. I found it on line and it looks like what they have in store will REALLY make BOND the hottest remakes EVER. Google my friends google….

Enjoyed Quantum, though not as much as Casino Royale. I think without Craig it would have been a clunker. It was overdirected and over produced, and it assumed audiences ran out and watched Casino Royale just a hours before entering the theatre to watch Solace. The human passion that drove Casino wasn’t present… At the end of the day, I had a good time, though and when it hits DVD, it will sit proudly on my shelf next to the rest of my Bond films.

As far as the Star Trek trailer… It was very exciting, but what was up with that kid they cast as a young James T. Kirk… some of the worst casting I’ve seen in a while (maybe it will make more sense in the film)… When the kid stood up after his little death defying stunt and boldly proclaimed his name to that cyber cop, I didn’t get the goosebumps I think the filmmakers were going for; instead I just sat there and said, “really????”

I felt like I just watched a James Bourne movie. I like Daniel Craig’s inerpretation of Bond, but I still feel that there needs to be an element of Bond that has made it such a successful movie franchise over the past 4 decades. My friend and I (Bond fans since Connery) even started making fun of the movie towards the end. The villain was weak; the nod to Goldfinger was ridiculous; still no ‘Q’ branch; no Moneypenny; and even the signature ‘gunsight’ opening was pushed to the end of the film. This is a prime example of ‘not enough’ Bond as compared to ‘Die Another Day’ – which had too much to swallow. The producers really need to find a perfect mix…shake it, don’t stir it, please.

I still think the new Star Trek looks like Saved by the Bell in space. Might be good, but ehhh…

“Quantum of Solace” was an action film, yes, but it the plot had the intricacies of “The Spy Who Came In From The Cold.” Besides, Bond fans knew the film following “casino Royale” would be more action-oriented, and that’s okay.

I’m still skeptical as to why such baby-faced actors are playing the high-ranking “Star Trek” officers we all know and love. They don’t even LOOK like they’ve paid their dues yet to the service! Don’t know if it will work when Captain Kirk looks like he just got off his shift at Starbucks.

James Bond isn’t just gadgets and babes. I haven’t seen this new movie, but I loved the new Bond in Casino Royale, so if it’s like that one, I’m sure I’ll like this one too. Read Flemming’s short story “The Spy Who Loved Me” and you find a Bond very similar to Craig’s version verses the Bonds before him. Craig reminds me of Connery, but with a harder edge.

Quantum Of Solace is a very good movie that is underrated. People seem to think that this movie is a Bourne movie, but they fail to realize the amount of emotion this movie has. Daniel Craig is the only actor to really portray the emotions that Fleming created for his character. I do believe that Connery set the roles standards, but I think Craig is catching up very quickly.

People who claim this is not a Bond movie becuase of gadgets and sex, well revenge often has little to do with sex. Going out for revenge, I have a hard time believing I would be bedding girls left and right.

Overall a great movie and I think it closes up the Vesper/Bond relationship very well.

If the action scenes had been at least decently done, then the movie could have been a good action flick. As it was, it was horrible. The only parts of the movie that I found enjoyable was at the theater and the girl dipped in oil being a throwback to the goldfinger. I found myself yawning a couple of times during the frantic action scenes that were not followable.

What was disappointing about this film was it’s lack of feeling and fun. Ya can’t out Jason Mr. Borne. This episode of Bond felt like a watered down less exciting version of the last Bourne. There is no reason why Bond can’t be up to date, hard core and use gadgets, have fun with da girls and use a sense of wit and humor. Craig is great. But what made the last bond interesting wasn’t the lame poker game motif which barely breathed excitement…It was the emotions tied to the juicy excitement.

This director has never made an emotional film despite his attempts to do so with very emotional material…He was all wrong for this. Worse yet, the script was all over the place with barely a plot that held. And then to go the distance w/revenge and then not be clear about how his lost love felt or didn’t feel about him — what a waste. Better luck next time.

Wow, the new star trek trailer looked great. But as a star trek fan I HATE how fellow star trek fans get allll bent out of shape about these little stupid details like Kirk’s eyes arent the right color, or the ships nacelles are too big, or the bridge doesnt look like the cheesy cardboard from the original series…. sheeesh, get a life and at least TRY to enjoy it.

That trek movie is about to rape my fondest childhood memories. I wish for nothing more than a total failure for it, and the death penalty for Abrams for the audacity to think he could get away with such a travesty of justice.

I am torn between this new Bond and the classic Bond of Roger Moore’s days. In the Roger Moore days, Bond’s hair hardly ever got messed up, villians were gentlemanly in nature and he used his womanizing to a large extent.
Under Brosnan, we started to see a move to a more “Jason Bourne” type of Bond, but maintaining a sense of suave (remember him fixing his tie on the wave runner underwater?)
Now, we move to a more extreme “Jason Bourne” character. I like it. But, I do miss the Bond that can fight in a tuxedo and come out unscathed (notice that Craig is always bloodied).
I’m torn.
But, this is NOT the worse Bond movie ever. Watch “In Her Majesty’s Secret Service” for the WORST Bond ever……or any of the Timothy Dalton movies. Those make “Quantum of Solace” a box office hit.

Bond is Bond, and this wasn’t Bond.

Craig may be a great actor, but the script seemed like a tweaked Bourne script with the locations changed to cover it up.

Connery was Bond, followed by Brosnan and Moore. The rest don’t count, yet the scripts made them passable. Maybe the producers want to portray Bond in a way in the beginning to show how he became the 007 that Connery portrayed. I will reserve judgement on that until I see the next two films.

But, as a true Bond fanatic, these two films disappointed me. They just didn’t have the professional writing or class the previous movies had.

I haven’t seen Quantum of Solace yet. But I’m willing to give Daniel Craig a chance. Just like I did when I saw Casino Royale. I thought he was fantastic. Sean Connery will always be my favorite James Bond; Daniel is a very close second. I never liked Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan or George Lazenby (?) or Timothy Dalton as James Bond. They are all good actors in their own right – but not as James Bond.

I thought this was the worst Bond movie ever. Daniel Craig is also the worst Bond actor ever. Bond used to be clever, suave, a charmer, quick-witted and tough as nails. This new Bond is violent, dim-witted and simply a thug. The film is all special effects without any class whatosever. It is filled with ridiculous car and boat chases, and extremely brutal fights with the worst film editing I have ever seen. My boyfriend really liked it, though. So, I think there will be Bond fans no matter what the films turn out to be.

It went against the general audience expectation on 3 major embellishment accounts -
MUSIC, CHARM/charisma , BEDDING in that order

Who the hell cares about the plot in a Bond movie!
I would be greatly surprised if it isn’t ridiculous. Goldeneye – indeed!

But the music lacked the soul of Bond, the script lacked the charisma of Bond and the girls didn’t get any from Bond

This past year, I re-read all of the 007 books, in order, and I agree completely with those that noted that the Daniel Craig version of Bond is easily the closest to Bond as Ian Fleming imagined him. He’s not even a particularly likable character–just an interesting one. Watch the Roger Moore films (be my guest), if you want silly quips and formulaic films. Daniel Craig is the real deal–or as close as we’ll ever get.

I thought Q of S was a tremendous disapointment. I LIKE the new Bond direction (less gadgets, etc.). My problem with the film was not these changes, but rather had bad a movie it was in its own right.

What little plot there was seemed unintelligible, tenuously connecting long action set pieces rendered unwatchable by the obnoxious overuse of shaky cam and extreme close ups. I was bored during the action sequences because I couldn’t tell what was going on. I was bored during the rest of the movie because it lacked plot and characterization.

Casino Royale was the best Bond movie ever. And it achieved this high mark by doing something new: giving Bond some depth. He was a human character, with flaws and feelings are relateable motivations. His coldness in Q of S would have been appropriate if it were ever explored. But instead of feeling like a reasonable response to Vesper’s depth, it felt more like Daniel Craig being at sea without a script.

Here’s hoping the next Bond movie punts this director, trims the action, and ups the drama, plot, and character.

The star trek trailer looks amazing! I remember seeing my first star trek movie when I was about 12 years old and it was the last movie with old crew.. Star trek VI The Undiscovered country. I was really skeptical at first as i really hate prequals but It seems JJ Abrams pulled through. It happened before and it will happen again. Star Trek was considerred a wash-up after that movie Generations and what happened? THey came back with “First Contact” and it rekindled. then died off again. I have a good feeling this movie will revive it for a new generation.

I think this latest Bond film symbolizes the new era of Bond, where in the beginning of the film there is no playing of the traditional theme music, no gadgets, no bond girl, no bad guy to defeat in a fight to the finish, no Spectre to overturn, and the worst movie song in Bond history! The character, Daniel Craig, can only play the script given him. He plays Bond as well as his forunners have and maybe better. We need to get back to the Bond that most are comfortable with and know. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, please!

Why is it when you don’t like something, those who do like it accuse you of whining, being a baby, or otherwise standing in the path of “progress”? I don’t like the whole idea of a “reboot” of Star Trek. It is NOT stale. If you think it’s stale, don’t watch it. I simply demand the right to state my opinion, as I respect the rights of others to state theirs, whether or not they agree with mine.

In this case, Mr. Abrams has convinced Paramount to let him do his thing his way. The movie has been shot, and there’s nothing left but “tweaking” edits. The cast doesn’t bother me. The changes to Enterprise, and the character’s backgrounds do. The story sounds great, but messes with the history of Trek too much. (Hence the “reboot”)

So, as I did with the horrendous treatment of “Thunderbirds” a few years ago, I will not see this film, I will not purchase the DVDs, I will not see it on “on-demand”. I will not buy OR read the book, I will not purchase any of the associated merchandise. I wil vote against this where it hurts Paramount the worst – in their pocketbook with my wallet. There are enough others who feel like I do to make a dent, at least. If another movie is made, well, I hope all who wanted this enjoy it. I’m out.

Since my earlier comment was mentioned, I just wanted to say that I see just about every film that comes out and I let each stand or fall on it’s own merits. I am a long time Star Trek fan and even though I have a hard time seeing how any but those who originally played the characters can make a movie playing those original characters, I will give the new Star Trek full opportunity to prove me wrong. I stick with every word I said about Bond though. The new Bond is a thug who would fit in better working for Tomy Soprano than for British Intelligence.

To odysseus14, I am a Star Trek fan from the early 70’s and I thought the trailer was well put together. As for the kid saying “I’m James Tiberius Kirk” being badly done…I disagree. “Maple syrup” is what Star Trek 5 was, and that was a poorly done film,; actually comparing Star Trek 5 to maple syrup in an insult to maple syrup. You can’t critique a movie on it’s trailer, it is not logical. lol!

This movie is so platonix, predictable, dumbed down, so..so un-Bond like it should be sent to the Disney channel. For goodness sakes, the opening credits are to be original, sexy, stimulating and creative. To have ‘Bond’ displayed during the opening credits was pathetic, and moronic! I hope this is Craig’s last Bond movie. He is a walking tallking bobble head with no idea of how to be a ‘Bond’. And what happened to the ‘Bond’ Girl? Need to have a gorgeous girl wearing something that is exciting and sexy. Where is Q? Where are the gadgets? Where is the sex? When did James Bond get neutured, or in Craig’s case spayed? None showed up for this film. Glad I only lost $5.50 to see this trash. Give up Craig! You just don’t have it!

I’m a big fan of the Bond films. Be it Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig. They have all had their good and bad moments.

I was not however, a fan of Quantum of Soalce. It seemed like the writers got lazy after making a brilliant film of Casino Royale, and they decided to just make a straight up action film more in line with Jason Bourne than Mr. Bond. I think Craig is great as the young, brutish Bond, and didn’t have any problems with his character in the new film. Mostly it was the story and the main Bond girl that bothered me. The story itself was rather cheap and shallow. They seemed to have 2 or 3 plot lines going at one point, but only paying minor attention to one. There were a couple good one-liners. I also realize that this film was not going to be a typical Bond flick since it was based on revenge. Bond did get “lucky” once, but the rest of the time he was focused on catchy the bad guy whatever his name was.

The writers could have at least come up with a story that was a little deeper than the simple “I am angry because you killed my girl, so now I will kill you”. Can’t wait for the next one to come out.

The action scenes might have been good if they hadn’t looked like they were edited by a crack head. Apparently it wasn’t enough to just show a good action sequence. There had to be two running simultaneously with strobe-like editing cutting between them. It was nauseating. Literally.

Bravo Daniel Craig! Keep up the good work and hopefully we can see a little more of you in the flesh:)

The guy is a killer with no emotions, which is interesting, but he isn’t very suave with the ladies. Moore was too suave. This guy is a body builder with no romance in him at all.

Shaky camera, and quick cuts obscure the action. It was timed wrong, with no pacing, just quick back and forth cutting to obscure the action instead of showing it. Someone editing this with their new mac made cuts just for the sake of editing. The opposite of good story telling.

Why on earth did the hotel building start blowing up at the end of the film? I didn’t realize rooms just blow up for the sake of blowing up and burning. Was it supposed to be an oil refinery? Just ignorant film making i suppose.

The film has a harsh edge which i sort of liked, but the shaky camera and quick cheap editing ruined it. I wish they would stop using this bad technique, or at least be required to add SC next to the PG rating that stands for shakey camera, and QCE for quick cheap editing.

Star Trek will be the highest grossing film for Summer ‘09

Daniel Craig is not Bond, and Casino Royal was let down. I’ve watched all the Bond movies until now, but this one could not even get me in the theater.

Marc Forster should be thrown out of the movie business thanks to his manic cuts, shaky cam, and bubonic blue color tones. He ruined Bond for millions of fans.

Maria, the idea that The Dark Knight was not well received by Batman fans is, in a word, ludicrous. It was embraced by comic book fans more than any other movie I’ve ever heard of. The only people who thought that it “strayed” from the “true” Batman were people who were fans of the campy old TV series or the ultra-cheesy run of comics of that era. Fans of early Batman and/or post-1970 Batman were, by and large, thrilled.

Re: the new Star Trek cast – what are these guys, like 16 years old? Younger characters are great, but let’s keep it at least remotely BELIEVABLE. Are these guys even old enough to vote? Some of these new Trek cast members look too young for even THIS SCREWED UP COUNTRY to send off to war! This just helps perpetuates the idea that there is no need for someone to be old enough to even buy a beer, in order for GEORGE *%*?!* W BUSH to send them off to die in battle! SICK!

Please… Worst movie ever? What about such fare as Ishtar, or Battle Beyond the Stars? This was actually an entertaining flick. And for those Bond fans who think he should be a sharp wit and flirt, with no substance, get over it. These last 2 films have presented a re-imagining of the Bond character in a more realistic, and more entertaining, format.

Let’s not forget that Bond is a professional assasin. Not exactly a cheery profession. And the novels on which the character is based present him as a stone-cold bastard. So watch the films with that in mind, you might realize that these are the closest to the books the character is based on…

I enjoyed both movies, I think Daniel Craig is one hell of an actor and he’s just getting better with time, kinda like fine wine lol. But seriously this bond should be much darker and more action packed. He lost his love and he wants revenge!! Also for people who say he’s not like other bonds or he should be more romantic or more..whatever..this is a totally new bond. I’ve always liked the Sean Connery and Roger Moore bonds, but Daniel’s bond is a great ‘new’ addition to the bond style.
This bond is action packed from start to finish, and I love how he’s so cool and smooth, I do wish Felix had a bigger part in this one, but I’m sure that will come with time. I believe these bond movies will get better and better each time! So thank you to the cast and crew that made one hell of a movie!!

It’s true that the Daniel Craig Bond is closer to the original Ian Fleming novels, but anyone that says that Craig’s Bond has more in common with the Sean Connery Bond needs to watch a 007 film with Connery in it. Connery’s Bond had more in common with the other Bond’s than the new Bond. The Connery films basically invented Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Craig’s adaptation of Bond is truer to Fleming’s original vision but the preceding Bonds were more of the more kitchy spy leanings. Not to say that either is wrong or better. They’re just different. Although I do wish QoS had more action. The only real gripe I have about the new Bond flicks is that, cinematically, they try too hard to be like the Jason Bourne films. I like to think that a new Bond should be setting new standards for other spy films to follow, not the other way around.

Bond, Tame Bond: Not the exciting what-happens-next suspense action it used to be. Needs more life next time.

Trek: Wow. I only now realized I’ve always wanted the idea of Trek to be introduced to the theatrical excitement of today’s films, action and real life – and the trailer’s at least, did not disappoint. Where’s my next trailer??

Dunno..the last new Bond was..OK. This guy just lacks the charm and charisma of classic Bond like Connery or Moore. Heck, I’d take Moonraker over this new ‘mean’ retooling of Bond.

Huge disappointment. This movie wasn’t a Bond movie. There were no spectacular action scenes that were truly unique. Remember Casino Royale’s opening scene on the crane and jumping between buildings? Or the airport scene in Miami? Nothing like that in this film. What about the gadgets? There weren’t any. It was also dark. this was just another action film but not a memorable one. Craig and crew are 1 for 2. They better get it right on 3 or there won’t be a 4….

I watched the Star Trek trailer and all i have to say is why are they making Star Trek like Starship Troopers?!?! Just another way for hollywood to destroy a classic series. Whats next GI JOE!!! LOL (Yes i know its coming)

I didnt care for it iat all

I completely disagree with those naysayers of the new Bond movies (especially because they need to read the Ian Flemming novels). First of all, Quantum is a direct sequel, so you should take Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace really as one really long movie (which reminds me that I can’t wait for Solace to come out so I can watch them back to back) and also very strong. It minimized gadgets (which it still had), it had some wacky stunts (jumping through a construction site to get the perp), impossible SFX (blowing up the embassy using that container, and dogfighting in a WWII style bomber/transport), and just enough womanizing to satisfy this Bond lover. Not enough to be truly Bond, but then again, he isn’t supposed to be the Bond we know and love. In context of the rest of the Bond movies, this isn’t just a reimagining but also a prequel. This is Bond when he just becomes a 00 agent. Consider Brosnan’s bond: in Goldeneye, he is already an established 00 agent.

Craig is signed on for 2 more Bond movies. I guarantee they will make him a womanizer yet. These movies are establishing Bond’s character as both spy and assassin.

I would be curious to know why people think there isn’t enough womanizing, though. Casino Royale, he has the girlfriend of the guy he beats at poker who gets tortured and killed. He softens for Eva Green’s character because he falls in love with her over the course of their close working relationship. In Solace, I’m not entirely sure what these people would call his tryst with Strawberry Fields if not womanizing, and it would be silly for Bond to have gotten with Olga’s character because of plot.

I guess they won’t be happy until the next Bond movie is nothing but Bond doing the most unrealistic things possible in order to sacrifice plot and get the girl. Because face it- that’s what half the previous Bond movies were. There were no amazing plots, it was all focused on action and sex and grotesque villains (all three of which were present in Royale). People just can’t stand even the smallest inkling of change I guess.

In the opinion of many, including myself, Star Trek has been traveling downhill ever since its creator, Gene Roddenberry, died in 1991. His successors have demonstrated neither his understanding of what Star Trek is nor his abilities as a producer. I have therefore been very pessimistic about what the future holds for this franchise now that shortsighted mediocrities, with their market studies and demographcis, are now in charge. The Star Trek geeks may get everything they want out of the upcoming movie, but another reason Star Trek has been going downhill, I think, is precisely because they have gotten what they wanted. Image Star Wars without George Lucas; how Star Wars fans would totally botch up that franchise if they were suddently put in control. This is the situation Trek is in right now.

I’m a big fan of the Bond movies. When Casino Royale came out I loved it! Bought the DVD and have watched it several times! I think Danial Craig as the new Bond has brought the franchise back!!! But, I wasn’t a huge fan of Quantum of Solace. It desperately needed Martin Campbell back (the director of Casino Royale). This Marc Forster version had way too many choppy/blurry chase scenes. Felt like I was watching the Blair Witch Project. The story was also pretty weak and could have been beefed up. Considering this was a direct sequel, I can’t understand why they changed a lot of the elements that made Casino Royale such a success…..

I am glad that there are none of the things that most people associate with a bond movie in casino royal and quantum just yet. I want to see why bond became the man he is and how he got started as the movies progress. It wouldn’t make sense to make a movie that has bond as a seasoned professional with all the bells and whistles (Q, moneypenny etc) when at this point he’s supposed to be just beginning to learn the ropes of being a 00 agent. True the villian in quantum was more like that creepy guy at the laundry mat than someone of the caliber of say Dr No or Goldfinger but he was supposed to be small time. I want the super villian to be someone that makes your jaw drop and say wow for lack of a better description. I like the current bond being dark,cold and more like a no nonsense killer than someone who is already a master spy right out of the gate with a rushed explanation of how he got to be the way he is.

I wanted very much to see the Bond movie, but also advid to see the Trek trailer. Imagine my surprise when there was no Trek trailer. Very disappointed, but I enjoyed the action packed very little dialog Bond.

Hmm, “Quantum of Solace”… could they have at least left in the half hour of film that would have explained why the title is “Quantum of Solace”, other than the one liner they had towards the end of the movie: “I told you everything about Quantum…”

Really, where was the real plot other than car chases, knife fighting, and a compound exploding?

As a Bond fan, I like the new and “darker” portrayal of Bond, but couldn’t they have skipped this movie and gone on with the true sequel of “Casino”. This was just a filler movie for the series while they figure out how to re-imagine the rest of the bond series.

If they go in order of the books, the sequel should be “Live and let die”. It’s going to be hard to top McCartney’s take on a Bond theme song….

On Bond: Well I know that I’m in a very small minority that did not care much for the bond franchise to begin with, the first one i ever saw was Golden Eye, and I liked that. Then I saw a few of the other ones, and well… basically the movies came off to me as an endless sereies of remakes. That said, I LOVED Casino Royale, and LOVED “Quantum of Solace!” Purist be damned Daniel Craig is the best bond I’ve ever seen. And yes this not like most bond films, its not nearly as campy, over the top, and boring as the others. I could accually take these films seriously, and really, if you thought Quantum was the worst movie of the series you either never saw “Moon Raker” or you have no taste.

On Star Trek: I have never liked any of the Next Generation star trek movies so going back to the original (and skipping the other spin offs) seems like a great idea, after seeing the trailer, its easier to picture other actors playing the iconic roles.

quantum of solace was better than the first daniel craig bond movie… but only because the first one sucked so bad…
these new bond movies are crap the humor the characters are all gone

Although I DID miss Q and the gadgets, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I go to movies to be entertained and this movie entertained me.

Quantum of Solace was an outragous, exciting bond film.
I always wondered what Bond was like when he first met M and was given 007 status. I didn’t realize Bond was in love before he met and married his wife in “On her Majesties Secret Service”. I now know why bond is the way he is with women, other than the obvious that they are always either trying to kill him or get information from him. I have to admit the womanizing of the other bond films were getting to me a little. But this bond was new and fresh in terms of action, the battle for control between M and himself. It is awesome to see how “SPECTOR” got started and how MI6 found out about SPECTOR.
I loved this Bond. 007 new and older will still draw me to the theatre.

I will say that the new ‘Bond’ movies have given a newer more ‘fresh’ look to a strung out franchise. It includes the types of things we like to see in our movies, and the writting is actually ‘pretty good’.

Now, I believe the same in what I saw of the Star Trek ‘re-boot’ preview. This franchise has been stretched to it’s limits with tons of movies, tv shows, and conventions. But the main issue is, most people liked the original cast the best (in my opinion). So why does it seem like a bad idea to re-visit the original characters in a new and fresher way? Not sure about the little details I noticed in the preview that didn’t seem to be ‘in-line’ with the past Star Trek’s…but again, this is a restart of a dead franchise. Glad to see that some fresh overall directing and producing vision looks to be put into this…hopefully the story or plot lines are well done. Is it going to be rated ‘R’?

As with any rehash of an old series, it’s success is depended upon how they can reinvent the characters but remain true the story. We saw this in Tom Cruise – Mission Impossible, we saw this (eventually) in Batman. Star Trek will be tough because it has hasn’t been out of the spotlight for any real length of time, so I’m not sure how this reboot will be received. It appears they’ve dispensed with the established series timelines and who know what else. They will of course lose some die-hard fans for this, but lets hope that it is good enough that it will gain a new younger audience that will perpetuate the series well into the 23rd century!

“Dark Knight (which was well acted) also strayed from the BATMAN formula and has not been well received by fans (too violent for small kids / far from the comics original personas).”

Huh?! As a lifelong Bat-fan I can tell you you’re 100% wrong. “The Dark Knight” was one of two films that stayed close to the source material, much like Craig’s Bond (minus the scar). Knowledgeable fans loved it and are eagerly anticipating more of the same.

The Star Trek trailer looked amazing.
I am happy to see that from the trailer, the story wasn’t trying to remake the Star Trek history or movies. It seems to start from the time that kirk, spok, and the rest of the gang were cadets leading up to when kirk got his first ship.
That is so cool. I am looking forward to Trek. apart from the fact that I am clearly a trekky of sorts.

Next Year Movie line 2009 up looks awesome. Can’t wait!

Read the books people. Bond is supposed to be brutal bastard, period. He’s a man who’s given up the some of the more civilized portions of his humanity in the service of queen and country. He’s a cold blooded killer and a man somewhat haunted by what he has to due (thus the broads and boozes helping him drown out the ghosts of his past). These films are reboot of the franchise so we’re seeing him just start to come to terms with all of that. For the time period in Bond’s life that this represents, these are the best movies possible.

Like Daniel Craig-Casino Royale was better than Solace. Loved Roger Moore as 007 because of his wit and Jaws always trying to kill him. Very excited about the new Trek movie. Not a trekkie in anyway, but remember watching the original series when younger and like the way this one looks.

There is something to be said for witty a double entendre delivered with a British accent, and I love me some Pierce Bronsan, but lines like ‘I thought Christmas only came once a year’ was just plain cheesy.

Over the years the James Bond films sort of evolved from a spy movie with rapier wit to a campy movie with fun gadgets and boobies. I’m perfectly fine with the latter, but the franchise needed a good working over to iron out the lame sexual come-ons and monotone jokes.

Enter Daniel Craig. Now, I wasn’t overly impressed with the photo stills of his daisy dukes blue shorts, but when I sat down and actually watched ‘Casino Royale’, I was pleasantly surprised at how damaged James Bond could be. I think that’s what’s bothering people…

He’s real.

James Bond is an international spy with a license to kill – yet people are confused that he’s actually killing people. A ‘James Bond’ movie isn’t just about a handsome British guy who schtups dozens of women…I should add, it isn’t that ANYMORE. James Bond is dark, damaged, and a killer.

I grew up watching James Bond, I’ve seen every single one, and could name every actor who has played James Bond just as quick as naming all of Elizabeth Taylor’s ex-husbands, and I can say that Daniel Craig has not shamed the name or franchise. He’s given the franchise new life, albeit a dark one, and is damn handsome to boot.

Should there be more boobies? Sure. A little more boobies never hurt anyone.

As someone who read all of Ian Fleming’s Bond novels just before Casino Royale came out, I would have to agree that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace feel much more like the “real” Bond in the novels. I think much of the action was a plot vehicle in QoS, but that’s largely the way all Bond films have been. “How can we get Bond into an unimaginable and unique situation to get people to see the film? Okay, so how can we twist the story to get him there?”

I didn’t feel that the storyline was great in QoS, but I didn’t go to Shoot ‘em Up for the great plot either. I went for the action! For that matter, I was rather impressed that Casino Royale followed the book as closely as it did – much more closely, in my opinion, than the first Narnia film.

Movie: Quantum of Solace: I left the theater after 20 min of viewing. It seemed to consist mainly of large metal objects and impending collisions crashing across the screen. The people, whether they were the main stars or not, were devoid of screen presence. Totally a bore.

I think a lot of people get a very narrow, closed minded view of what a character should be. It is true the books had Bond portrayed in a way more in tune with the current incarnation. However, Craig’s portrayal of Bond shows a depth of humanity and character that were often lacking in many of the old movies.

Timothy Dalton nearly killed the franchise and while I like Brosnan he did not quite take it above the campy parody. Close but not quite.

I think the most ringing endorsement came from my lovely wife who liked Bond movies but was not a huge fan. She said “That was probably the best action movie I have ever seen.” She thought the characters had depth and substance and there was a more organic story plot than normally found in the old movies.

I hope to see Craig make many more Bond movies.

OK. I agree I didn’t give it a fair chance of getting a valid review after only 20 min. My main comment then would be that my favorite James Bond will always be Roger Moore. I’m an oldie and I’m stuck with it.

This was the worst Bond film ever. It lacked the 007 sensuality and sense of style. Too much focus was placed on action/chase scenes and not enough on plot development. I could not figure out the storyline at all. Why was he after the guy in the photo??? During some of the action scenes the film’s focus appeared unsteady and out of focus making it difficult to see what was happening. A truly bad job was done with this one, better luck next time. I was disappointed after all of the hoopla.

I’ve seen the Trek trailer but I am disappointed due to the fact William Shatner will not be in it.

I just saw Quantum of Solace last night, and my first comment to my buddy was that I was glad they had a little bit of movie between the chase scenes. The story did have a lot of potential, but the makers opted for an action extravaganza.

As for the Star Trek trailer, Abrams is making an eye-candy film with no concern to the storyline and character development of the original series. I know I won’t go see it as a long time Trek fan.

Hello people – this Bond is HOT! I love most of the Bond movies (sorry, but no Roger Moore Bond is good), and can appreciate the changes they made to Bond. The James Bond in the books was a killer, plain and simple. You never got that feel with Connery, but certainly do with Craig.

After watching Casino Royale , Quantum Solace was a let down. It was a dizzy display of action that was impossible to follow with a weak plot. Surely the person who directed Casino Royale had nothing to do with this movie. Definitely feel Daniel Craig fits the role as Bond.

I have admittedly only read one of the Fleming books, however, I do like Craig’s interpretation of Bond. Of all the Bonds, he does come closest to the actual text, though he has a ways to go before he surpasses Connery.

I agree that the camera work was shoddy at best. And that the film was overproduced.

As for chemistry, and in the words of the New York Times (I think), the film was ‘coldly efficient. The only reason that I bring this up is because I walked out of the second Bourne movie feeling just as empty as when I left QoS. Or even the Empire Strikes back (to mention another sequel). I do hold onto to the fact that the third film in the Bourne series was phenomenal, and I hope that the producers of the next Bond film are able to be equally as creative.

As for Star Trek, let’s just wait til the movie comes out and then have a real discussion.

Anyone who has read any of the Iam Fleming books knows that this version of Bond is the true version of the book. There were no gadgets, no fluffy fight scenes that people like Roger Moore made infamous (you know, he fights a master martial arts guy and all it takes is one judo chop to bring him down). In essence, Bond is a maniac, sociopath, menace to society, womanizer…..And that is what makes these past 2 bond movies AWESOME, and makes Daniel Craig one of the best Bonds ever!

I *loved* “Casino Royale” and thought Daniel Craig was fantastic – he was cut far more closely to the original Sean Connery Bond than the lightweight Brosnan or nearly-flamboyant Roger Moore. (Don’t even bring up Dalton’s Bond; he looks like a total thug.) “Casino Royale” held onto a lot of things that made Bond so appealing – glib lines, Q, M, flashy cars, great action sequences, a smoldery-eyed Bond girl – and then updated the genre to make it not so blatantly – well – sexist. The film told a good story about two things: what earned Bond his 007 stripes; and what turned Bond into an untrusting, woo-’em-and-leave-’em kind of guy. We assume, at the end of “Casino Royale”, that he is about to kill the man that he feels was instrumental in the death of Vespa, his lady love. And it is from this point that “Quantum of Solace” essentially picks up.

If you’re expecting to get more typical, glorious shots of either Bond or his babes lolling about nearly naked, forget it – this film has no room for it. This film is, pure and simply, about Bond’s revenge. In fact, if you don’t really care about more of Bond’s back story, or are not enough of a Bond fan to really care, I’d probably even say avoid it. Now, taken out of the Bond genre, as a film about revenge, it is satisfying enough But as a Bond film, it’s lacking – especially as this is probably the only Bond film that actually requires you to have seen the previous one to fully understand and appreciate all that goes on.

This is also the only other Bond film other than “Live and Let Die” to not have Q in it. How can you have a Bond film and NOT have Q?! Well, in this film there simply isn’t any room for Q, although there is some gorgeous high-tech computer wizardly that just made me drool. Today’s technology is so cutting edge compared to older Bond films you could almost think the role of Q is obsolete; but I would argue against that. There are certain things that define Bond films, and they are:

- action sequences, generally the more unbelievable the better, and at least 3 BIG action sequences per film;
- babes, babes, and oh yes, babes, usually with goofy names (ie. the one in this film is Strawberry Fields)
- Q and all the awesome Bond gadgetry
- cool cars
- many exotic locations
- some sex. Generally PG-quality sex, but, still.
- great outfits

At any rate, the entire film is driven by Bond’s rage as he seeks to get revenge on those who led to the death of his lady love, Vespa, as seen in Casino Royale. He is too tense to be glib, too serious to recognize that Bond needs a touch of humanity, and too focused to do anything else.

There is a modern, ecological-economical plot, tied into a combination of South American and post-Communist politics, but it definitely plays second fiddle to the whole revenge thing. The locations are also a combination of sweltering Caribbean ports, rotting South American cityscapes, and frigid European cities. This film simply has no time to relax with a babe on the beach, although Bond does manage to bed – albeit briefly – one woman.

Now, if it wasn’t a Bond film, I would give a straight thumbs-up recommendation, I did enjoy the film, but it definitely disappointed from a Bond-ian standpoint. The movie was well-paced, didn’t seem to leave any hanging threads, and fulfilled my desire for a couple hours of Daniel Craig oogling (although I would’ve preferred more Craig-in-Speedos-type-oogling) and was decent enough as an action film. There’s also a blatant nod to one of the original Bond films, late in the film. As a Bond film, it fell short; as an action film, it was decent enough. Unless you’re a devoted Bond fan, however, you can probably give it a pass.

I have seen all the bond movies (most of them many times). Although I liked the last new bon d fil, I was disappointed with the latest Solace film. While it hd some exciting chase scenes, the movie was just that, a colections of chses, fights, etc. wbut it had not content. The film never esatblished any base line or reason for the movie. All it did was raom form scene to scene with no basis, reason or connection as to who was doing what or why. Bond never even estatlised any kind of relationship with nayone in the movie. While I watch bond films oever and oever gain, i saw nothing in this one to make me to wamt to see again.

Bond, as portrayed in the movies, has changed to reflect the changes in society and the changes in taste of the viewing audience.

In the 1960s, Connery’s Bond was suave, but tough. He was promiscuous during a time in society when “Make love, not war” was the attitude of the day. He fought enemies that reflected the Cold War mentality, with gadgets that mirrored the 60s pre-occupation with all things scientific. Foreign countries were still mysterious to most people, and a Bond film was almost like a world tour of exotic locales.

In the 1970s and early 80s, Bond went into “Free Love” and gadget excess. Bond was more fun during the “Me Decade”, which was a time when everything was about having fun. Women like Farrah, Loni Anderson, and Lynda Carter had boys/men drooling, stunt men like Evel Kneivel, Dar Robinson, and Hal Needham were movie stars in their own right, and European cars and Japanese electronics were all the rage. People wanted to have fun and be wowed by nifty stunts, cool gadgets, and hot babes. Moore’s Bond was all that in spades.

In the late 80s and 90s, society changed again, and Bond with it. It became more serious. The cold war was ending and computer age was taking off. Big corporations were becoming the robber barons of this generation. It became hard to portray the villains, like those of Connery’s and Moore’s day, when society’s attitudes toward those stereotypes were changing. Grittier, pumped up action heroes like Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis, and Van Damme were kings of the box office. Any one of their characters made Moore and Connery’s Bond look quaint. Plus, with AIDS reaching epidemic proportions, Brosnan said that a promiscuous Bond simply wouldn’t work anymore. Obviously not an scenario that Ian Fleming could have predicted.

In this post 9/11 decade, society has changed yet again. Terrorists and dictatorial governments have replaced the previous Soviets and Pacific Rim adversaries as the villains of the day. Hollywood action films have become increasingly dark, gritty, and violent. Characters like Jack Bauer, Jason Bourne, and Batman rule on TV and at the box office, and would kick the pre-Craig Bond’s butt off the planet. Since AIDS is still an epidemic, a promiscuous Bond still would be seen as a bad joke. With the global Internet now being in our homes giving us information overload, and all manner of electronic toys available these days to everyday people, the whole gadgetry fascination has pretty much dried up. The landscape has changed, and so must Bond.

In addition, with the release of the Austin Powers movies which parody the Connery-era Bond, make going back to that interpretation of the Bond character impossible. It would make Bond seem dated and silly.

Whatever they decide to do with the Bond character, the character will reflect the state of the society that it is meant to entertain.

Justin, comment #1, is accurate. Bond is an ASSASSIN. A KILLER. He is written as a killer. That’s his job. He’s not some wise-cracking tennis pro. (Like Roger Moore.) Craig is brilliant.

How does a featured article get posted via cnn.com with so many spelling errors and simple oversights? Oh yeah, Solace was good, but cannot touch Royale. I try to see it as a stepping stone to the future Bond movies. Perhaps we will then see the quintessential Bond that we are accustomed to, only better due to Craig’s portrayal.

Bond, as a 00 agent in MI6 is first and foremost a weapon. His talents and skills are such that he is used in only the most dangerous of situations. I suppose it’s a matter of preference, but I find the late Connery/Moore Bond incarnations kind of lame. I want to see a Bond who is focused on his mission, on taking down the worst international criminals and defending the free world. Obviously part of the characters charm is that he is NOT ONLY a deadly and supremely capable spy, but that he is also charming and witty. In fact, those are skills that I expect to see more fully developed as the rebooted series progresses. The Bond of CR and QOS (which really play as parts I and II of an extended film) is raw and new to his role and that should be accounted for. I fully recommend this movie, both as a worthy addition to the Bond Canon and as an impressive Espionage Action/Thriller in it’s own right.

I grew up watching all of the Bonds (good & bad). The last couple of films have been a few steps above the rest and much more like what Ian Fleming wrote. Daniel Craig is easily my favorite of the actors. I find his portrayal of Bond has a nuance that has been lacking. Although credit has to be given to Marc Forster Neal Purvis & Paul Haggis. Purvis as writer on the last 2 movies has definitely brought Bond into 21st century.

Quantum of Solace is a great setup for the next film, which should be a spy war. Can’t wait.

It’s interesting someone mentioned Batman. If you look at the hsotory of this chyaracter he has gone through several reboots since he was created in 1939.

The Batman of 1989 was the first cinematic foray into the Dark Knight version of Batman. I loved the new Dark Knight even better than the Burton version, which is saying a lot. But at the end of the day I loved them all, just for different reasons (with appologies to George Clooney, I HATED the one you were in. Not you as an actor (love your work), but the script sucked.)

As for James Bond I too am a life long fan and have loved every incarnation of the character, the books, the movies were all good, but again for different reasons. This new incarnation of Bond is one of toughest characters I’ve ever seen. I do hope at some point they bring back Q and a few gadgets. But hopefully not as silly as the Moore version, while fun was not even close to the Ian Flemming vision.

As for Trek? Are you kidding? I’m soooo there!

I think what some critics forget is that it’s the pre-story to the movie Bond we’ve come accustomed too. This isn’t the next sequel to the Bond saga but one of the pre-quels where it’s trying hard to explain who Bond was before he was the slick, confident agent 007.

The problem is, the series had run a course of sorts. You can only keep progressing the same Bond tale over and over again with sequels to where they became predictable. However, I think there’s a certain part of movie-goers that like a franchise to become predictable because it lends itself to a “comfortable experience”. You know what’s going to happen and what to expect. I will say I’ve enjoyed the last two Bond films immensely and I count myself as a very large Bond fan, including the books and these 2 were much closer to the Bond of literature than the other movies were which I applaud.

As for Star Trek, that marks the first time I’ve ever been excited about a Star Trek movie and as well, the first time I’ve ever planned to go see one in a theater willingly.

I notice no one has mentioned George Lazenby as a great Bond in what I feel is the finest film in the series, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Had he not been a douche about his career and stayed with the franchise, he would’ve been the one to beat.

i was disappointed. the story was confusing, too much over the top action sequences, and no sharp wit of the other bond stories. i loved casino royale and was really excited to see quantum of solace. i enjoyed it, but it wasn’t the blockbuster i expected. more daniel craig, please!

@ JR. I’m a bond fan too. But even i think this one wasn’t very good. I don’t know what it was about this one but i never got into it. I was always waiting for something to happen. Next time maybe….Can’t wait for the star trek movie tho!

What’s there not to love about the new Bond? From the opening scene of Casino Royale, I knew we had hit a better and realistic Bond. Frankly Bond sometimes has to do the dirty work of eliminating the threat. He needed to be athletic, able to win a fist fight, etc. The last Bonds could never do that convincingly; they looked like mushy wimps.

This was the first Bond to actually look intimidating and have the physique. Embrace the real Bond.

I would like to see movie and book franchises have a linear time continuation. James Bond was 007 in the 60’s and 70’s and played wonderfully by Sean Connery. Then a transition to a new character who is the new 007 should have been made. Roger Moore should have played 007 as someone other than James Bond. As each new actor assumes the agent 007 role, the character should change as well. It would be cool to see someone handle the roles and responsibilities of 007 differently than James Bond. We could also compare the different 007s. Life moves forward and people (characters) should reflect that as well.

I remember seeing “From Russia With Love” when I was just a little 5 year old kid on the BIG screen, not the little Movieplex screens of today. And the whole movie was larger than life both in story and scale. With this new Bond, the actor is confronted with a very poor story and script. This is the movie biz and they just forgot to have a great story BEFORE they turned on the cameras. It was a disappointing waste of my money, $12.

The director tries to compensate with quick cuts, shaky cams, wierd color tones etc to try to hide the fact that the script and storyline are poor. I don’t know the films budget but they should have spent some $$$ on the story. This could have been a great movie of Bond before 007 and instead it is just ho-hum…forget story and turn on the FX.

Just saw Quantum……… I’m a huge 007 fan, and unless their next release gets some more AstonMartin in it, some gagets…etc, add some of the “traditional” JB theme music when something cool is going on, or it will end the series fast. Craig is an excellent bond, but the writers need to get some other items in there. (Come on folks, lets get “Q” branch started also). And please please please, stop with the “JasonBourne” filiming techniques! I just wasnt all that pleased with this one. (And coming of Casino Royale, it could have been so much more to build on). Someone blew it big time. (Sorry)
Or to sum it up, if you just came into the movie, you’d probably not know it was a 007 movie. (Just another good guy/bad guy movie)

If you haven’t read the books, then you have no basis in this conversation. James Bond is one of the most ruthless, hateful, spiteful, mean-spirited characters in the spy game. The farce that was created in the later movies is just an abomination and an affront to the original books.

Sean Connery came the closest in the beginning, but fell down. Pierce Brosnan (sp) came closest in the modern era, with Timothy Dalton a close 2nd. Dark, brooding, hateful to both women and his targets.

With Craig, we finally have the vengeful, brooding, thinking spy’s Bond of Fleming fame. So you posers get out and go away. Read the books, do yourselves a favor and learn what it’s all about.

The directors couldn’t have done better with Craig. This is the beginning of the new era of Bond, and I say amen, it’s about time!!!!!!

given that craig is an emotional Bond… if i want emotion i’ll watch a drama movie and not a spy-action movie. or are the new Bond films changing genre?

A couple of you guys criticized the Trek trailer for casting and for acting. The trailer lasts 2 minutes total. The longest single clip lasts only a few seconds. How on Earth could you guys judge acting or casting based on the trailer alone? I hear a couple people trying to couch gut reactions as though they were based on substance. Nice try.

I’m a huge Trek fan. I’m very excited about the new film. I’ve watched the trailer like 50 times! It’s gonna be great!

I’ve read all the Bond books, own all the movies, and this is the worst Bond movie yet. So much so that I don’t plan to buy the DVD, and that is saying a lot. Where is the plot? What there was is very disjointed, and even the chase scenes, whether by car or on foot, had not continuity. Mr. White’s appearances didn’t add much to the plot, and there were more disconnects than I could follow. And I won’t go to see it again to see if I could somehow make sense of it. ENOUGH!!! Get someone who can write a story line, and someone better to direct, or give up on the series.

to quote “maria:” “Interestingly……Dark Knight (which was well acted) also strayed from the BATMAN formula and has not been well received by fans (too violent for small kids / far from the comics original personas).”

WHAT?!? Who have you been talking to?!? Last I checked, The Dark Knight was the 2ND HIGHEST GROSSING FILM OF ALL TIME, and Batman fans everywhere are singing it’s praises! No, it’s nothing like the Adam West TV show, but that’s WHY it’s good. Tim Burton’s Batman movies got more flack from parents with little kids, but nowadays, kids like the dark stuff.

Bond, on the other hand, I agree about. QOS strays a little too far from what I really like about Bond, spefically what I loved about Casino Royale–he doesn’t have any charm. And the action was almost completely incoherent. Hope the next one is more akin to CR.

Maria…. Are you nuts? Dark Knight was not well received by fans????

Anyways, everyone needs to chill out. Actors who play Bond are mortals who eventually sag and get old. Bond the character is forever, and there will be a dozen actors. Even Sean Connery had his flaws. And every few episodes there will HAVE to be a reboot to avoid becoming stale.

The MTV executives decided early on, in the mid 80’s, that they would stay forever young. That meant matching the tastes of the trendsetters. Several mistakes were made but MTV is a perennial hit.

The 007 people also realized the 1960s are over, and gadgets have become irrelevant in a world overrun by them. Today, Bond has no choice but to strip down to his core (did I just say that?).

Quit your whining and be thankful they’re still being made.

As I recall Timothy Dalton’s Bond was also meant to get back to the Bond of the novels: a guy who did what he had to for queen and country, but who wasn’t having a jolly time doing it.

I found Dalton a welcome relief from the smirking, prissy Roger Moore, whose later movies were mostly played for laughs, but “The Living Daylights” and “License To Kill” flopped, and fans now routinely rate Dalton at the bottom — which must be a relief to George Lazenby.

FWIW I think Dalton was a good Bond hobbled by bad scripts. Craig is better, and his first two scripts were great. I hope he plays the role for a long time to come.

I liked “Casino Royale” because it showed Bond in real danger. There were consequences, there were plans, there was surprise, and there were clever escapes from plans going awry. “Quantum of Solace” is more like the forgettable movies preceding Royale. The camera shakes scenes into a nonstop blur, machine guns blaze at close range, everything blows up, and Bond walks away from the finely shredded rubble with just a few scratches. During the climax you see Bond beaten repeatedly with a blurry weapon. More blurry scenes later it’s revealed to be an axe! Nothing is clever, nothing is a surprise, Bond is invincible, friends of Bond die, and the most ordinary items are explosively flammable. Zzzzz.

Don’t count on a plot to come to the rescue. The story needs to move at a lightning pace to make room for those tedious and blurry fights. No time is spent revealing what tiny detail Bond is recalling from the past movie to solve the mystery of who killed his spy girlfriend. Maybe it’s because I haven’t read the book, but this movie wouldn’t have made any less sense if nobody spoke a word.

Condolences to Elle and Amanda. Your inability to perceive the drop-dead sexiness and edgy danger of Daniel Craig’s 007 leaves me quite sad for you. I’ve seen all the “Bonds” and even the Mighty Connery looks like a cardboard cut-out now.

And Elle, can you actually be serious in believing that the original Casino Royale was “done right”??? DAVID NIVEN played James Bond, for Pete’s sake. By that measure, Seth Rogan would have been about right for Quantum of Solace.

Bit of advice, ladies: check for a pulse.

“Quantum of Solace” and “Casino Royale” are to the Bond series what Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies are to that franchise — stripped-down, nimble, unsentimental masterworks that rescue the series from certain extinction.

Craig plays Bond as today’s reality would require him to be: a tight-lipped, remorseless killer. And Bond’s enemies and missions have evolved as well: They’re appropriately complex and ambiguous.

I consider the films a wake-up call that the swinging ’60s and the Cold War are over (great though the early Bond movies were for their time).

I suspect, however, that history will regard “Quantum” and “Casino” like “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”: misunderstood, underrated and overlooked.

I recently moved back to LA and seeing movies with my brother, especially the new Bond film was a blast! As for the movie I agree the female lead is the worse of all Bond girls, even Teri Hatcher wasn’t that bad; and I cannot believe that now Bond is a killer with little or no conscious, if he does not get his answers from a suspect; but the action made up for the lack of good acting, with the exception of the great Jeffrey Wright and Dame Judi Dench who always put in a grand performance.

I grew up with Bond (first one seen was Spy Who Loved Me) I haven’t seen Quantum yet (money issues), but I am looking forward to it. I really liked the reboot they did with Casino. I think it was absolutely needed for a franchise that was in danger of repeating itself way too much, and I like that they are going back more towards the Bond the way Fleming first intended.

I have been a Star Trek fan since the days of the Original Series in syndication before the first movie. Do I think that the new movie is going to mess with the timeline? Yes. Do I care? No. Star Trek has always been about something more than worrying about continuity, and if J.J. can do something to breathe some much needed life back into that universe (even if it’s a parallel one) then I say Hallelujah!

And I’m sorry, somebody up there said that The Dark Knight was not well received??? So I’m guessing that it was strictly ticket inflation that caused it to make nearly a billion dollars worldwide, almost 3 times what Batman Begins made…

Won’t see the bond movie, last few years I have not found them interesting, same old stuff.

Can’t wait for the new Star Trek movie, been a fan since it came out when I was in 5th grade, trailer was great, and they picked the right guy to do it. Bad Robot, LOL. Casting for Spock is perfect!!!!!

The issue with QoS is that so much tradition and loyalty is built after 20+ movies and 40 years of following a tried and true and loved formula. Going to a new Bond movie is somewhat like visiting an old friend. The gunbarrel sequence at the BEGINNING. The theme song about 10min in. Moneypenney. Q. Bond and a girl together at the very end as credits roll. An interesting villian with an interesting name. The classic line ‘bond, james bond’. These are the brand elements that make a movie a Bond movie versus just another movie. When the producers remove these items to be supposedly fresh and relevant, they fail to realize that they in turn have not really made a bond movie. They just borrowed his name and M’s name and everything else is different. If they do it one more time, they will risk killing the franchise and James Bond brand identity.

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace aren’t James Bond films, their lead character just so happens to be named James Bond. There’s a good reason why Ian Fleming never got incredibly rich and popular with the novel version of James Bond….the books are bad. The movies were good simply because they were farcical fun. Taking that out makes them just another action movie with flat acting, over the top special effects and no real merit.

The Bond franchise had become silly and lacking in substance. With Craig, these are actually well-produced action movies, that don’t rely on campiness. I got tired of the prior films becoming tongue-in-cheek parodies of themselves.

I thought the action sequences in Solace resolved themselves too quickly, and didn’t have the epic nature of some of the sequences in Casino Royale, but it was still a good film, Bond or otherwise.

I think there are those that read James Bond books and then go to the movies, and there are those who just “go to the movies”. Personally, I’m the “go to the movies” kind of guy…that is how I came to appreciate James Bond, and that is the James Bond I know and very much look forward to. Yes, times have changed and the levels of action in movies have as well. The dizzying action-sequence film style (as seen in Bourne Identity, Casino Royal and other action packed movies like Indiana Jones Crystal Skull etc…) seems to be the preference of many directors of today. Personally, I wish they would tone it down a little…I like watching good action and its not easy in some films…. Quantum had too much of that business!
Daniel Craig is a solid fit to carry on the legacy of James Bond, but I have to question the director and his decisions. Perhaps this movie is more of a true to the book character…but what about our Bond and us movie aficionados? I left the movie as if I had forgotten something, but can’t figure out what (anyone relate here?). Then it hit me, no Q! What happened to Q? What about all the spy gadgets that truly made James Bond famous? Bond and gadgets go together with like “peas and carrots”! Thank goodness we still got to see the Aston Martin!
Bottom line…the movie lacked the enjoyment of an easy to follow story line, and there were several loose ends which never got resolved. But, since it was a sequel to Casino, I can somewhat understand why there was not much romance…the man was heart broken. I did however, appreciate the different settings/locations the movie took us…that DID feel like a Jame Bond movie.
I is my hope that these select opinions are shared by some and that we will soon be able to again experience a modern James Bond that still has that debonair, cocky, playfulness that all the prior James Bond characters so eloquently portrayed.
Oh, one last thing….please start the next Bond movie with the gun barrel and the Jame Bond music!!!!! What’s with playing the theme at the end????

I agree with Justin’s take that if you’ve never read the books, then you really don’t even know what Fleming wanted with Bond. He isn’t the cheeky agent that Connery and Moore portrayed him as. He’s much more brooding and quiet. This actor is the closest to the Bond books since Timothy Dalton. And though Connery and Moore made the francise what it is, the question is…do you want the movie character created over and over again, or do you want the substance that an Ian Fleming novel had. I haven’t seen Quantum yet but I can tell this actor is the closest to the books I’ve read since I was a child.

I loved it. And I didnt even notice the lack of ’special’ Q gadgets, until the above story mentioned them.

The newest Bond feature “Quantum of Solace” is lacking in the fact it is NOT a fun movie. It has a good story, a nice mystery. However the films are no longer the escapism that the prior installments had been. And that actually goes back to casting. Daniel Craig, while an exceptional actor, is not the person to carry the mantle. He has yet to create a protagonist you are rooting for. His is a bully, a thug, and no way the Gentleman Killer from the Ian Fleming novels. For the betterment of the franchise, it is time to for someone else to get their License to Kill.

I’ve always hated Star Trek, this movie changes nothing.

I’ll take Connery, Moore and even Brosnan over “James Blond”

Me? I’m waiting for the Friday the 13th re-make

Although I saw the previous Bond file, there was not a clear connection as to why the bad guys were, well really bad. The bad guys seemed more like todays business people, but perhaps a bit more focused on the goal of one country at a time. So, why start with hoarding water in Bolivia anyway – if they were all that smart? Surely they could connive something really outlandish – like to bankrupt the world’s economy or at least crash the USA’s auto companies (OH, sorry – those plots are taken).

I thought the action was more reasonable and not just for fun or theatrics. KO’ing three compadres in an elevator would have been in slow-mo in previous “action” films, read “corny”. The :leave no prisoners” concept – is not to be underestimated in its effectiveness.

I believe this film did not pander to the uber-rich and the “look look that’s my car” crowd. Very refreshing. Nice locales as well.

The table-top display and touch screen throws were enough to consider to tech toys. It may be that those devices are marketed in the next year by HP or whomever.

I was OK with the gal thing and it was almost believable that the Brit chick was taken by hotel swap and all. The gal on a mission – had no time for fooling around, (very fine to admire tho).

In all, I agree with the folks that applaud the change to maintain the character.

“These times they are a changing…” with apologies to Bob,

.

I was a kid when Star Trek the Next Generation came out and I loved it, but I haven’t seen it since then.

The trailer for the Trek movie gave me goosebumps! I made me remember that whole geeky fantastical world that I cant wait to revisit. Why do we have to wait until May!?

Quantum of Solace was amazing. Thonly thing I actually agree with the “critics” about is the action scenes. They are shot way too frantically, and from seemingly random angles. It works with the Bourne franchise, but not at all with the Bond franchise. And frankly I’m glad the movies have transcended beyond the stereotypical and unrealistic portrayals of the past. I don’t to go watch a movie about womanizing, unrealistic and unfeasible technology and bizarre over the top plots that are laughably ridiculous. I mean a villain who kills by throwing his hat at people? The new Bond not only stays a lot closer to the roots of the series (read the books), but also adds an emotional depth to the story that makes Bond much more than a mere sex symbol.

Maria,

The new Batman film(s) with Christian Bale follow the Dark Horse comics extremely closely. I thought it was well done…but I hated the bright, depiction of Gotham in the The Dark Knight. It looked like Chicago.

And what was up with Christian Bale’s voice? Three quarters through the film he started to sound like an out of breath old man.

Daniel Craig is a surprisingly adept Bond. Kudos to him. As for any writing, that is up to the writers and the producers (Albert Broccoli’s daughter Barbara and stepson Michael G. Wilson)…..

As for the new Star Trek movie…. I have ZERO interest in anything that J. J. Abrams touches. He tends to have some great ideas and story concepts, but he has the crappiest endings for all the “build-up” any of his shows/movies have had. Felicity, Alias, Lost…..super awesome first seasons, then they completely fell apart because he CAN NOT KEEP a story going. And everything seems so made-up-on-the-spot. “Mission: Impossible III” was filmed like a TV show and was boring, though not nearly as boring and awful as Jon Woo’s M:I-2. Ugh. Still, I expect the new Trek movie to have an interesting beginning and fall apart completely after the first 30minutes. I’d love to be wrong because I’ve enjoyed EVERY Star Trek movie released, thus far.

Daniel Craig..the poor man’s Bond.

It was absolutely refreshing having a James Bond movie where you could concentrate on the character rather than his inability to keep it in his trousers or all the gimmicks. Too many movies rely on gadgets and folderol. Daniel Craig brings a realism and professionalism to the genre and relies on his raw abilities rather than tricks.

Maybe later they can introduce ‘Q’ and gimmicks, but for now I’d rather get to know the man behind the gimmicks.

It’s just like others have pointed out, this was the first in the story line. People get that confused because it was the 21st and 22nd movie to be made. Bond had a couple of “gadgets” in Casino but that was because he was officially deployed. Solace is a continuation of that story when he was still out in the field and then went rogue. That’s why he didn’t have the gadgets for the rest of the film and had to trade in his vehicle for the airplane.

My thing about this movie is that the villian wasn’t really much of one, he didn’t offer much of a “game” for Bond, there wasn’t much to the character, and the villian didn’t do anything really. Kind of makes me feel that Elliot Carver now made a better villian in Tomorrow Will Never Die (thought he was the dumbest and the worst worldwide domination plot in any bond film).

Basically just felt like this was a filler between Casino and Movie 23, kind of like Matrix 2 was.

Ok… um… seriously. I’ve been following the development of the new Star Trek movie for awhile. The unhappy people seem to be complaining about 3 things. 1) In the trailer, the Corvette is a stick, but in “A Piece of the Action”, Kirk didn’t know how to drive a stick. 2) On the Enterprise there’s a plaque that says she was built in San Francisco, but in the trailer it looks like she is being built in Iowa, although there’s no proof of that in the trailer. 3) William Shatner has brown eyes. Chris Pine has blue eyes. Hope this puts some things in perspective for some people. Me? I’m gonna wait until I see it before I decide one way or the other, but right now I’m excited about it.

What happened to Q? James Bond with no new toys or no toys at all? It was not worth a red cent. I own every James Bond film and will NOT buy this one it sucked a BIG ONE!!! No toys, James always has new toys or some type of toy. What happened to the LOVE SCENES PLEASE he didn’t have one LOVE SCENE that is total BS. James Bond always has LOVE SCENE. Also, NO name saying. He didn’t even introduce himself as “BOND, James Bond 007″ whoever wrote this one needs to be FIRED IMMEDIATELY if not sooner!

Quantum of Solace was a relatively good film, in my eyes, but had some poor choices: while I don’t feel bothered by the ruthlessness of the action and Daniel Craig’s portrayal (he is the best Bond since Connery), I was less than pleased with the editing and pacing of the movie. The editing was so bad you couldn’t tell what was happening and the pacing of the story suffered terribly from this. Also, the villain seemed to be totally lacking in motivation. What gives? Where are the days of the Blofelds, the Auric Goldfingers, the Strombergs? All Matthieu Amalric did was give an impression of Roman Polanski on speed. And personally, if the Bourne franchise is supposed to have shown the EON producers what the Bond films should look like, may I remind you one of the terrible first attempt in that (Bourne) series of the late 80’s, starring Richard Chamberlain? So, no way is a three movie franchise going to show a fourty years business enterprise how it should be done.
As for the Star Trek trailer, I don’t know. I’ll see it when it opens but I have been a watcher since day 1 and I don’t think, judging from what I’ve seen so far, that this film was made for me. If at all, it may be successfull for the kiddies, but I doubt it will be what the earlier show was to me.
On the other hand, if this film doesn’t become a hit, STAR TREK may very well be considered deceased. Is that a better alternative? Maybe not. But Spock used to say it is illogical to assume that thing stay the same. Maybe Star Trek has run its course. And if so, I still think it did a remarkable job in it’s day.

I thought it STUNK, hate that I spent $9.50 to see James Bond with no new technology gadget, and no LOVE SCENE what is that all about. No Q? I loved Q that was my favorite part of James Bond and on top of that he didn’t even have a martini. PLEASE IT STUNK….TRADITION is TRADITION with “BOND, James Bond 007 use his NAME PLEASE……….Don’t waste your money on this one. They didn’t even have him introduce himself. What’s that about you leave out James introducing himself. Go back to the basics, don’t let us WASTE our money again. Alysia Keyes worst song EVER!!!

Books are Books and Movies are Movies if I had wanted to read the books I would have read them. I have read NONE of them but I own all the movies. I want the REAL JAMES BOND MOVIES back. Not this no gadgets, no Q, no Love Scene, no real Mission, no Martini. He didn’t even introduce himself as Bond, James Bond 007. I own all the James Bond movies and I doubt I will buy this one it was pathetic. Hate that I wasted my money to go see it. Maybe, they should consider new writer for the film next time.

I’ve read all the James Bond books, and I don’t agree that the last 2 Bond movies represent the books well. Bond in the books is always describing his clothes, women’s clothes, his meals, etc. In otherwords, he has a sense of style.

I thought this Bond and Casino Royale where excellent additions to the Bond series. I like that they have retooled the Bond image and taken it back to the books where Bond is not all gadets and slick but a hard knuckle agent that has to do a lot of work to get to the bad guy and is not always going to emerge from the fight unscathed.

I think this movie needed a little more plot development to tie the Goverment overthrows to finance of a large unknown organization but that aside it was a good movie.

I spoke to Roger Moore *TODAY*, down here in Auckland, New Zealand on his book signing tour. He said that Daniel Craig and the producers have done *FANTASTIC* jobs!! He pointed out that Craig and the current writers are doing Bond as Ian Fleming intended — its in the novels. Sir Roger also said that if you don’t like the books, or if you don’t like the character who played him in the 1970’s: that Roger-something-or-other guy (!) then you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. He also said that Bond should be considered more entertainment than it is art. There you go: straight from the horse’s mouth, no less!!

Trek trailer — I’m sure it will be a well-made, fun movie but as a 40-year Star Trek fan, I worry about the rumoured and already-confirmed violations to the well-established Trek ‘canon’ and internal history.

I saw the trailer and wasn’t very impressed. It just seems dumb. When I was 10, I was the most rabid Trek fan ever and now, I’m in my early 40s and still like the original series. I own two seasons of the original series on DVD. But this trailer just … SUCKS. Really. They decided to make a movie for the type of folks who talk back to the screen as though they were in front of their tv sets at home. Or text each other during the movie. Its Trek for the Jerry Springer crowd. That’s fine, I get it, its a reboot. Who cares.

But for anyone in Hollywood with the power to greenlight who might be reading this by some bizarre twist of fate: there are many GREAT science fiction stories that could be adapted for the big screen. There are many writers with plenty of fantastic ideas out there that don’t need a preexisting brand name attached to creations to connect with an audience. How about something at least slightly original? For once. Sheesh.
Peace!

I think, in my humble opinion, that Daniel Craig is the best Bond in the series, second to none (even the great Sean Connery). For too many years, Bond has deteriorated from an event that everyone wanted to see into just another action film with unbelievable plots, stupid villains, and meant for nothing more that showing off the newest “Bond girl”. Even the theme songs started to suck. Then along comes Daniel Craig, and Bond is revamped for the modern age–he doesn’t have futuristic weapons and cars much anymore, but that allows the viewer to concentrate on Bond and what he can REALLY do. Think of it this way–if there was a real-life version of Bond in today’s world, he wouldn’t be a womanizing playboy playing baccarat. He’d be an expert in many forms of hand-to-hand combat, weapons and tactics, and most likely wouldn’t get seriously involved with any woman simply because she could either a) get him killed, b) end up getting killed because of him, or c) be an agent for the other side. There’s still enough jaw-dropping action in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace to keep you interested, but finally you have what we should have had all along (and what Bourne already had)–a realistic secret agent with real skills who may look good to the ladies, but can kill without a second’s hesitation. I say bravo to the new Bond!

Uh, where’s Captain Pike? Wasn’t he the original captain before Kirk???

Bond movie? eh… Miss the golden days…

The worst Bond movie ever. It was good action movie but nothing like Bond. Daniel doesn’t fit for role, and all the things that were cute in Bond movie are missing, even the famous phrase “my name is Bond, James Bond” so what’s the poin of watchin that movie. The industri is full of regular action movies and this is another one.

I thought this movie was terrible. Praise it all you wan’t for following the books and what not, but that is not the BOND FRANCHISE is. While I thought the story line was at least semi-tolerable I must admit that I absolutely hate movies where you can’t see what the heck is going on with the camera shaking all over the place. I feel like this is a cheap gimmick that somewhere along the lines (Ahem, Bourne) movie makers have decided that the public likes. Bourne was an interesting movie, but again do we really have to have the camera located on a fault line? If I feel like getting motion sickness I’ll go out on the ocean; If i want to see a fight scene, I want to SEE the fight not feel like the camera is being wielded as a weapon against the characters. Cloverfield was similar in this respect, a really interesting concept that just got mucked up with bad effects and a stupid story line.

Just my .02 but I thought Goldeneye was a fantastic Bond movie, however Brosnan’s other bond’s were pretty mediocre at best. I feel like Craig or whatever the heck his name is could become a decent bond, but we need to definitely go back to some of the basics of the franchise here and not attempt to re-invent the wheel at every opportunity.

One word sums it up – BORING. I actually tried, and fortunately succeeded, to fall asleep. Worst Bond film EVER.

Star Trek needs a new group; something after Voyager. Going back to the beginning; I just don’t know if it will work. Enterprise wasn’t a great as TNG or Voyager; although I enjoyed it. I’m a HUGE Trekkie fan, and I’m excited to see the movie, but I don’t think it will be a heart stopper.

What do the fans want?

Make Bond have a threesome.
Bring Q back, and the quirky humor.
Bond can be a super solider without being rediculously invincible. Make him get stabbed through the stomach with a sword or something, I’m sure he’s got a lot of bored brainiac medics back at the HQ waiting to do SOMETHING
Bond rarely visits America, or Detroit. Why can’t the next Bond go to Detroit? What not enough danger there for him?

The director’s ego, combined with horrible editing and a lame plot (I am Dr. Evil and I’m going to double the water bill of every household in Bolivia.) made this the worst Bond ever. Daniel Craig is great and Casino Royale was super, but this movie is a dog.

Hey,
Don’t forget Bond’s psychological profile…
He is coming off Casino Royale having been “stripped off” his armour… and after the initial feeling of having been betrayed, he’s got his “armour” back up, and revenge is on his mind…
He is therefore hard, cold, unemotional…
You’re not playful when you just lost the woman you loved.
Bond was willing to put an end to his career, but now he is thinking about only one thing, and that is “take down the organization” behing the killing of Vesper Lund… Every one of them!
You don’t like it, go watch Playhouse Disney!
I can’t wait to see this movie!

There is no point in comparing the Bond films to the books. That is not what this is about. This is about the movies only. It’s about how they were filmed, how the actors portrayed Bond, how the music and the editing changed and so on (stuff that books don’t tell you). Quantum is the first of all Bond films that has nothing to do with Bond at all, except the fact that they call the main character James Bond. I went to see Quantum Of Solace because it was supposed to be a James Bond movie but what I got was a fairly entertaining hardcore action flick with a very angry main character. Everything that defines James Bond was stripped from him. Craig said in an interview that he is mad that people are comparing the new Bond to the Bourne films, insisting that Bond is also about the exotic locations for example. But this Bond movie is cut so fast that there is absolutely no time to enjoy the locations. Not only is Bond’s charm gone, but Bond films used to have a certain charm and elegance to them as well and that has been completely transformed into this pre-chewed brain food version of Bond. I’m not saying to do the same thing over and over again, but the character of a franchise has to keep his characterstics and so do the movies themselves. Sorry for expecting him to flirt with women and to have him say “My name is Bond, James Bond”, but I thought this was a Bond movie. Then please don’t call him James Bond. Call him ’some guy in a suit’.

I was ready to throw in my two cents, but Justin nailed it.

Good show.

Dave

The problem with Bond is that Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore spoiled the character. They were effete, wisecracking pretty-boys, which is NOTHING like the character created by Fleming or, for that matter, by Connery in his best roles. Craig brings Bond back to what he should be, and I thank my lucky stars that the Bond franchise was FINALLY willing to confront its glaring weaknesses.

Consider this:
Not one single Bond Gadget from “Q” division.
Another boring movie where M says “Bond’s gone rogue”, yet she still supports him.
Acting was very “blah”.
No chemistry between him and the girl.
Bad guy was extremely normal, for a Bond nemesis.
No Moneypenny!
NO PLOT!
Glaring plot holes throughout the movie.

All in all, the most disappointing movie in the Bond franchise.

For anyone who has actually READ Ian Fleming’s JAMES BOND novels these last two movies are a breath of fresh air. Bond is not a smiling, happy, quip-laden persona. He is dark, depressing, doing a job that he doesn’t particularly like but does anyway (and does very well).

James drinks too much, smokes too much, and doesn’t drive Astin Martin automobiles (rather an old Bentley). He doesn’t have gadgets.

The franchise had become totally out of control. It shifted during the Moore years to a cartoon of itself. Action scene followed by a pause while Moore turned to the camera and made a cutesy comment. *yawn*

Brosnan breathed fresh life into the series (box office sales proved that) but couldn’t do much with the producers continuing to adhere to the formulaic mold of the Moore films. With this new re envisioning of the series it’s an opportunity to stop the nonsense and get to what James Bond was really intended to be.

If you liked the Moore years… go rent a Burt Reynolds film. (Burt was actually a consideration for playing Bond back before Moore came along… plug that mental vision in and mull for awhile).

I’ve been a fan of James Bond books and movies as far back as I can remember. I was very wary of the choice of Craig initially but he has put my fears to rest handily. Kudos, Mr. Craig. Please sign for another three films as quickly as you can.

What people need to keep in mind is that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, as well as the next Bond movie, are prequels to the previous Bond movies. They tell the story of James Bond “becoming” the 007 agent that we all know. That’s why there is no Q, no gadgets, and very little womanizing. That is also why he ordered a Vodka Martini and didn’t know what it really was. The movie was really good with plenty of action in it…almost non-stop. And it does portray Bond as a hard-hitting, fast killing secret agent just like all the other movies. Daniel Craig makes a good Bond and I hope he signs on for more. If you watch the movies again keeping in mind that they are prequels, I’m sure you’ll find yourself liking them more.

Would someone please explain to me how Connery is the perfect Bond? The man isn’t even English for goodness sake. Roger Moore fits better. The creator himself even once said that Timothy Daulton (cringe) was his idea of what Bond was supposed to be. All in all Connery was amazing as Bond but I just can’t get over the whole being from Scotland thing. I don’t know why, I’ve been hung up on that fact for years.

The preview for Star Trek before Quantum of Solace looked extremely stupid…and I’m a big fan of the earlier Star Trek movies. Nobody cares about the “introduction” of James T. Kirk and the Enterprise. What they should have done is made more Star Trek Next Generation movies back when it was on TV. Star Trek movies have run their course.

Having seen the Star Trek trailer online. I think the film my work as an action film, but as far as being loyal to Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry’s original intent, I believe it will fail miserably. It looks like J.J. Abrams wants to take Star Trek in a more Star Wars like turn. Making more of an action film with explosions and intensity than a movie that has some sort of sentiment and emotional range. Of course, true opinions won’t be known until someone actually can see the movie and not clips thrown together.

I thought Solace was a great movie and a great way to tie up some loose ends from Casino Royale. Most posts that I have read about dislikes of the new Bond seem like they have been posted without realization that there are still some loose ends that have not been taken care of. For instance, when he was at the concert and he heard everyone talking about the plans, everyone stood up and exited, EXCEPT the man that was captured by Bond and questioned in the opening scene. We have no idea what happened to that character. He has already been in the first two new Bonds so in my mind, it only adds suspense to the following movies. I would like to see how they have established men in almost every secret organization and I am glad they presented that as a fact in the beginning of the movie. I’m sure most of the negative Bond posts failed to realize that.

It is not always about being suave with the women or having fancy gadgets. I am thrilled they did not have that many because quite frankly, a pen that acts as a grenade, or a car that literally flips back on its wheels when the top flies off is old news. We have been reeled into this futuristic world of Bond with these awesome gadgets and I think for the viewers who are saying that this Bond was a great movie are right on track. We know what we want from a Bond movie, even though having more interaction with women is preferred. It is nice to know that Ian Flemming can bring back some of the great original ideas and make them the present. The scene where the girl is laying on the bed, completely covered in oil…that is a scene that reminds me of GoldFinger and further invigorates me to believe that these new Bonds are worth watching.

Look. Well I guess you can’t however I am a woman, I am a huge Bond fan since the days of Sean Connery. I have seen every Bond movie whether its on opening night, VHS, DVD or TBS. I haven’t enjoyed a Bond movie so much in a very long time. It’s not the best Bond movie and maybe I liked it more because there isn’t much out there movie wise to begin with. But Hot Damn! that movie was a whole lot of fun. I was very hesitant about Daniel Craig and I already knew who he was from a few of his films already. I was comfortably entrenched in the Pierce Brosnan era. The scene chemistry between Craig and Dame Judy Dench is unbelievable and worth the the price of admission alone. Bottom line: I loved it, loved it, loved it.

He should have been the sexiest man alive for people. Branch out People! He is beautiful inside and out and a brilliant actor!!!

Seriously, the last Brosnan movie featured an Ice Palace, and an invisible car (you could only see it when it left tire tracks in the snow)good.god.

how can ANYONE say ANYTHING about the direction the new bond films are heading? If the Bond die hards have a problem with Casino and Solace then maybe they should come up with ideas that followed the rediculous escalation of the prior films. Maybe in the next Bond film, Craig will go to mars, (with the interstellar Astin Martin of course) then discover a syndicate of evil space turtles, but realize that the turtles were actually working for Russia (which now is in total control of Pluto) but never fear, because Bond’s has a ray gun in his bowtie (which obviously solves everything) and when he comes back to earth, he gets the girl, has a martini, and smiles and winks at the camera (And all the universe rejoices)…………………..lame.

Does ANYONE remember what happened to the Batman franchise? Does anyone remember Arnold ice skating around the gala playing hockey against Batman and Robin? All the while saying “Chill!”
I mean, this WAS Arnold….the dude who killed the Predator, the dude who played the terminator, and you honestly believe that the Bond franchise was heading in the right direction? It was a fast sinking ship, and thank god they rebooted/restarted the story. Look at how Batman is doing now. Bond WILL follow, I mean they cranked out the movie a little too fast, but its what the world wants…realism.

I may be in the minority, but I thought The Dark Knight was ok, but not great. I liked Heath Ledger’s Joker and found myself looking at my watch when he wasn’t on screen Batman Begins was a better movie.
In the case of Casino Royale, I thought it was an excellent reboot. While watching it, I was never quite sure what era they intended it to be set in. It was somewhat timeless. So yeah, reboots do work sometimes. Other times such as with Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes, they can fail miserably. I think the Star Trek reboot will be closer to that type of film.
Just look at the shot with the new Spock doing the nerve pinch. Looks like a bad SNL skit.

Justin says if you don’t like QOS you should read the books. Well, I believe you shouldn’t have to read a book to understand a story or to enjoy a movie. IN fact, I’ve enjoyed a number of James Bond films without so much as ever cracking open an Ian Fleming novel. I don’t care that he is not full of wisecracks or that any number of expected James Bond cues weren’t there. In the end I ask myself, “Was it a good movie?” It was not.

It is a shame because I was looking forward to this movie… I liked Casino Royale. However, part of why I enjoyed that movie was because it had such a strong resemblance to the Bourne movies, not because it felt particularly Bond-like. It seemed that the old James Bond formula had gone the way of caricature (YEARS ago) and the NEW Bond formula was to copy another movie franchise. I was hoping for more of a balance in this movie. What I got – well, I just thought it was a mess.

While I am at it, shame on the moviemakers who, in two films in a row, had women who curled up into a ball, hugging their knees and suffered a comatose-like state that Bond had to “rescue” them from. Was this supposed to be a hint of sensitivity from this, the coldest of the 007s? Frankly, it comes off as sexist. Yes, I know that sexism in James Bond films is inherent, but at least it has been more fun in the past.

Yuck!!! When Casino Royale came out I was one of those screaming “Bond is not Blonde”. But Daniel Craig did such an Outstanding job I had to say he is a Bond, blonde or not. But Quantum of Solace, YUCK!!! I don’t think even the Master “Sean Connery” could have fixed this one. First let me say that the Sound Master should be shot…you couldn’t hear the dialog over the crashes and music. Second, even if you could hear the dialog the plot was terrible. Water…they are spending Billions over water…in Bolivia??? I was hoping for something more about SPECTRE. The most you get is “We are everywhere”. This was a major waste of time and money.

I want to nominate the theme song for a Golden Raseberry Award!
It is the Worst song ever used in any James Bond movie. That includes 1955’s Casino Royale with Barry Nelson, 1967’s Casino Royale with David Niven, and 1983’s Never Say Never Again with Sean Connery.

Next time get Eric Clapton or Genesis, or U2 to write the theme song. John Barry, (who wrote most of the music used in previous 007 films), must have gotten sick to his stomach when he first heard it. I know I did.

Quantum from the true BOND EXPERT.

First, Brosnin blows. Lets establish that. Die Another Day was awful as with Tomorrow Never Dies. Both awful plots esp Die Another Day with Hallie Berry who tried to outdo Bond. Pierce did alright in Golden Eye and The World is Not Enough, but the Brosnin era bond films were overall, WAY TO MUCH, EVEN MORE CRAZY THAN MOORE, and had awful plots with superimposed action scenes. Come on, Bond parasailing off a ice cliff with a super laser chasing him?

Second, Connery is the greatest BOND ever and WILL EVER be. Save Diamonds are forever, and Never Say Never (which I agree is the only worst bond song than Quantum), you cannot find any faults with any of the bond movies he was in.

With this said, what s does Craig bring to this and what of Quantum? Craig brings back realism. And alot of you are talking trash that he isnt charming or loving. Well, first its a prequel. Second, he does alot of that in the first one, Casino Royale. He still is a pretty boy, he wants the best hotel, eats fine food and wines. Dresses well. Craig has shown all of that, but unlike the fake brosnin excessive pretty boy, craig like connery, is able to get dirty and not mind it. I dont think Craig has developed it quite yet like Connery with the wit, sexism, and sophistication to go with the brute killer instinct, but it will come. As for bond being in love, he really is a nice guy. But his character cannot attach. So what is it with this, bond in love being a bad thing? Its rare, but most of the gimps out there think you gotta be cold cause its cool. Bond is cold cause his heart is cold not cause he wants it.

As for the movie. It was good. An actual real plot. Instead of some laser beam blowing up the planet, or a newsman startting a war with britain and china. Come on people. While you can have those big plots, realize, Connery didnt have alot of those either. Eventually he had some, and so will Craig. This movie is primarily about Bond overcoming his pain and discovering a little bit here and there about the organization. And he fell upon a small project they had. Trust me SPECTRE or whatever they choose to call them has bigger aims. I bet in the next couple, they come after Bond as he becomes a more well known super spy, trying to kill him, sending assasins. And then youll start to see Craig pour down a more Connery type level. As for the action, it was pretty good. As for the love scene, well he just got over vesper, and he did do the one red head, however, the love with the main girl, never developed and how could it? They werent together enough and they both had their own vengeance planned. If she shows up again down the road, which she may, then they may get it on. I liked her. Shes the hottest since Domino.

Was it the best…please no. Its hard to follow up Casino, it was a top five bond movie easy. So Quantum wasnt bad, it wasnt great, it was just a solid bond movie. Right in the middle. It was more real, but that didnt make it better. It was simply good and I enjoyed it. I wanted more, but more is coming.

Until then, shaken not stirred.

These are the voyages of NCC-90210

Sean Connery was great as Bond. Timothy Dalton wasn’t too bad, Roger Moore was a joke, and Pierce Brosnan was absolutley awful!

Craig is fantastic and brings more realism to the series. Definitely the best Bond yet.

Trek looks good. Nice effects, action, and good actors. Let’s hope there’s nothing as embarassing as James Cromwell’s performance (an otherwise good actor) in First Contact. Hope for Mi:III not Cloverfield in Space…

I have to comment on the Star Trek trailer. At first, I was worried that Abrams might turn out another crappy flick like his last one (Cloverfield, which should be near the top of anyone’s worst list). I saw the teaser that they put out a while back, but it didn’t show much and gave nothing away. This one, however, really hits all the right buttons. It looks like a better story and better action than we’ve seen in a Trek movie since First Contact, and I really like what I’ve seen so far of the characters. First, Zachary Quinto…come on! He IS Spock! As soon as I heard that they were making this movie and what it was going to be about (and having watched Heroes religiously since it began), I couldn’t think of another person on the planet better suited to a character than that. I like the cast they’ve got for this one, too. It’ll be interesting to see if they can pull off the characters as well as the original cast did back in the 60’s. Thankfully, no cheesy hippie crap this time around, so if they take it seriously, this could turn out to be one of the best movies in the series. At the very least, it could easily destroy that whole “odd-number Trek movie” curse. The best so far have been the first four even ones–Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact. #10, the last one, sucked completely…so maybe we can do like they did with the Alien franchise after they made Alien 3…just pretend like it never happened, and make a better film that ignores that storyline completely. Of the films I’m most looking forward to seeing in 2009, Trek is definitely in the top five. The only part that sucks is having to wait 6 months to see it !

Like Casino Royale, I think Daniel Craig and company have jolted new life into James Bond. The characters are more plausible and the action is intense. I enjoyed the connecting story lines. Daniel Craig is Ian Fleming’s 007. I was skeptical at first because I thought Pierce Bronson did a good job but all that has been erased with these last 2 Bond films. In my opinion, if I had to pick the worst Bond movie it would have to be Moonraker. Otherwise I have and hope to continue to enjoy all the Bond films. I look forward to the future of James Bond 007.

I still like Daniel Craig’s characterization of Bond very much; and as a previous poster noted, it is much more in keeping with the books (which I enjoyed as well). My issue is with the movie itself. All mind-numbing action with very little of the wit (not knee slapper one-liners; just wit) and character that was so expertly woven into the action of Casino Royale. The villain here was as terrifying as a organic health foods shop owner. He was a wimp; no sense of menace at ALL. After a while, the constant action felt more Jason Bourne than James Bond. And frankly Bourne was a tighter story. Hopefully, the next will be better. Craig is too good as Bond to waste. As for the new Star Trek trailer, I think it looks intriguing. I love classic Trek, but the franchise REALLY needs an infusion of fresh blood. I view as an alternate take on an old classic; not an ‘erasure’ of my childhood! As for the “canon” nit-pickers who find it sacrilegious? Relax. No one will steal your DVDs of the old show while you sleep.

I think that Daniel Craig is wonderful as the character James Bond. I think this was what Flemming was imagining when he wrote about the character.

However, the scripts given to Mr. Craig stink. I think this would be a wonderful chance for the producers to “re-do” the James Bond books and this time stay a little closer to the plot as written. Mr. Craig would be great in that role.

The James Bond books are so much better than the movies. Now would be a good time to fix that. Make more James Bond movies, with Mr. Craig, but stick closer to the books.

LOVE the Trek Trailer. New Life is just waht this tired old franchise needs. It looks FAB! Can’t wait.

Daniel Craig’s a great actor, and an intriguing choice for Bond. Unfortunately his films are falling victim to that BOURNE-style quick cutting gibberish that can make any stiff an action star (unlike Damon, at least Craig looks the part).

I have greatly enjoyed just about all the Bonds, with the exception of some of the limper Brosnans (particularly the horrendous DIE ANOTHER DAY), but I sure get tired of people knocking Timothy Dalton. They seem to be sheepishly following the conventional wisdom rather than looking at the actual films, or his performances. After the fun but lighter Moore era, Dalton took the Bond movies in a new, harder edged direction, more towards the Bond of the Fleming novels, tougher, but humanized, the echoes of which I see in Craig’s interpretation. Contrary to myth, both Dalton and his films garnered a lot of good reviews, and still do (check out Maltin’s movie guide and the Netflix pages), and they still hold up as some of the more dynamic and dramatic entries into the Bond canon. LIVING DAYLIGHTS was actually a hit, but LICENCE TO KILL was a victim of a botched publicity campaign. And hey, they were written/produced by the same people who did the Connery/Lazenby/Moores! One big Dalton fan? Producer Cubby Broccoli, whose steadfast support was weakened only by the illness that led to his death.

I’m surprised how few people have commented on the fact the QOS is a direct sequel of CR, the first time this has happened in Bond’s history. To experience the arc in Solace, it is imperative to watch Casino Royale immediately before, or at least have a damn good memory of its story. If it played as one long movie it follows a very strong story arc….boy finds girl, boy loses girl, boy kills everyone, and boy rids himself of the past…..which leads to the next installments, where I’m sure we will see the cool, sophisticated Bond we have been seeing for the last 45 years. He’s a new 00 agent, he’s tough, and he’s immature. Craig rocks and I can’t wait to see the character develop.

I don’t know about Quantium of Solace, but I don’t think the new Star Trek film will be such a hit. As a loyal fan of the original series, there several things about the film that directly contradict event in the original series. For example, in Balance of Terror, it is established that humans never really knew what Romulans looked like until Kirk saw them on the bridge’s viewscreen. And where’s Gary Mitchell? It was him, not Spock and the others, who went to the academy with Kirk .
Another complaint is with the set design, why does the bridge in the movie look more advanced that that of the original series. Despite the big budget, I suspect the new film is goint to be dissapointing peice of hck work that’s going to be a slap in the face of the fans that supported the franchise all these years.

For those that don’t think the latest Bond movie was a “real” Bond movie or lacked the gadgets and frills of the past Bond movies, then I suggest you might actually read the Bond books, all of them. The three movies that actually captured who and what Bond was would be Dr. No and the last two done by Danial Graig. Ian Flemings Bond was not Mr. Gadget, he was a cold blooded killer with a very high IQ. The books are hard to put down.

Casino Royal was epic, it was amazing.
Quantun of Solace was stupid.

The villains were lame, the plot was laughably stupid and unimaginative, and except for the first 15 minutes, the action was utterly unimpressive.

Stop trying to group Solace with Casino and say they are refreshing and original and blah blah blah… the fact is, Quantum of Solace is nowhere near in the same category as Casino Royal; they are completely different movies with completely different styles.

I don’t hate Quantum of Solace because it is different from the older Bond movies, I hate it because it was mediocre and boring all by itself, without any need for comparison.

At the very least, the very least, they could have brought back Spektre, to gie the villains credibility. That’s what I thought they were going to do, judging from the trailer…then at least it would’ve been Bond vs. Credible Supervillains instead of Bond vs. Wimpy-Environtentalist-Turned-Evil who steals water from poor South American country.

Really, not that I don’t have a heart, but, I couldn’t care less…

Quantum of Solace was a completely new idea, in that it was a newly fabricated sequel to Casino Royale. This might explain the lack of a “classic” Bond feel. Now however, I have to say that these two movies have been much closer to the original story idea that Fleming had. Apart from specific details, the basic plot and feel of Casino Royale (the movie) was in agreement with the book of the same name. In particular, Bond fell in love with the girl and she died and this led to the beginning of his cold womanizing persona as seen in the previous movies. Keep in mind that the first Sean Connery movie was not the first Bond story, Casino Royale was.

Now, in my far less than humble opinion, Pierce Brosnan was the best Bond since Sean — too bad the scripts were awful. The World is Not Enough was perhaps the worst Bond movie of all time… XXX was a far better movie that season.

I say to all the Bond fans who were disappointed by the most recent movies… give those two movies some time to age and watch them again. Meanwhile wait for the next one or two to come out. I have faith that this series is going somewhere good as long as they don’t go overboard with the ridiculous stunts.

This Star Trek movie must be taking place in a mirror universe. This trailer only being 2 min long was loaded with inconsistincies. 1. Kirk cannot drive (shown in the episode “A Piece of the Action”) where Kirk tries to drive a car. 2. The Enterprise was built in space and the parts were constructed in San Francisco NOT IN IOWA!!!. Here are other inconsistincies. 3. Spock and Kirk COULD NOT HAVE been attending the Academy together! 4. Spock was serving aboard the Enterprise under Captain Pike 14 years before Kirk assumed command. 5. Dr. Boyce was chief medical officer under Pike NOT McCoy!
The one hope here is that this is a skewed timeline which the elder Spock (Nimoy) has gone back in time to correct………