100 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

I have seen the UE several times and I still think what you are saying is a bunch of crap. And if it's there, I don't notice it so I don't care. *shrugs* BTW, I only replied to this thread because of your post.

Watch it tonight. Watch the UE of FRWL tonight and then come back to this thread and tell me you're not distracted by Connery's wig and lisptick and eyeliner between 18mins and 45 minutes. Then go see Q0S.

Then come back and we'll talk.

Believe me, I thought FRWL was at or near the top for years. Decades. Now...I need to turn it off and go back to a movie theatre to get my James Bond fix.

You are being very silly HB.

Context, Hilde. You’ve got to watch Bond films with context in mind.

We can really only compare FRWL to QOS in terms of our own personal enjoyment. And personal enjoyment I think has to include an acknowledgement of context. When I ‘rank’ FRWL as my #1, I’m factoring in the fact that it’s 1963 and that I’m not supposed to focus on wigs changes (or overdubbing, or rear-projection, etc…).

Comparing them on a severely critical level like you are trying to do is entering into the realm of apples/oranges.

Yeah, Sean wears make-up and wigs. Quantum of Solace is the sole cause of this realization for you?

Good point Judo. I also to admit to the camp of FRWL such as a headless Blofeld. When I rank the Bond films, I look at if it follows just good old fashion principles of story telling.

[Eddie Burns]

Erm, the OP does have a point.

I enjoyed the movie. Thought it was better than I originally feared. However, there were many things that were disappointing in it. Overall, it works and it's entertaining, but so is the Transporter.

I adore the film but some people in these forums act as if it's a masterpiece and scoff at anyone that differs in their opinion. Sorry to break it down for you, but this movie is not that great. I perfectly understand why some will hate it. The fact that it's not better than CR already frustrates me. It should have been because CR could have been improved on. Writers strike or not, I'd wait an extra year if I was guaranteed a developed script. Creating poor action scenes (forget the editing, they were poor) to compensate isn't something I'd ever settle for (unlike some).

There was nothing spectacular about the movie. Tosca was a waist. The sad thing is the earlier Bond films did everything better than QoS which is saying a lot. There is nothing iconic in the movie, nothing new to talk about, basically no effort anywhere except from the stunt men (whom no doubt will be disappointed with the final product considering not much is seen) Dench and Craig. It was just a typical run-of-the-mill action movie with James Bond in it. I heavily doubt there was any imagery that the general audience left with that lingered. I think that's why many are disappointed.

This movie should have gone some way to establish a new iconography for the series, being a reboot and all but instead we're still saddled with homages from the sixties and what not. Anything new or original, we steal from Bourne. Lazy filmaking in my opinion. My fear is that audiences aren't stupid, QoS will make money, but that was to be expected 'cause of CR. I doubt B23 can be as successful no matter how good it turns out to be.

P.S - Did the producers miss a trick with Cosio? I loved him, a natural Bond villain and should have had a larger part. Loved the way he spoke, his demeanor, and had tremendous screen presence. 'He had a beautiful Russian wife...(leans in) a daaancer'. Just the way he says that line.

[Mercator]

Has this crime for not liking the movie? I just want my old Bond films back - they had not so the badness for they have maded the series that we all now and love for, no? What is wrong with the 007 Theme? M being a man? Moneypenny? Q? Gaggets? Some good James Bond humor like Sir Moore was the best at. I like swarve and fistication with champagne and Bond must ALWAYS have Martini, shaken not stirred and be the introduced "The Name's Bond, James Bond". This has werked for the so many films - why stop now? Was any fan asking of this? Were we not the going to cinema, no? I just think there has betrayal going on. Dancial is a great actor but too short, too not like Fleming's man in the books. They did not even use the novel of Quontom Of Solice!!!!! He also has a muddle of career which some watchers have not the liking for. Many of people who have just like me - we don't have Bond for to the changes. Sir Moore and Sir Connery were the best because they kept to 007 Bond James. This changes was not request. I have not mislike for people who have enjoyment of Craig but must they alzo have the understanding for us. Let us just try to find some Bond in the next film.

[Lazenby]

Erm, the OP does have a point.

I enjoyed the movie. Thought it was better than I originally feared. However, there were many things that were disappointing in it. Overall, it works and it's entertaining, but so is the Transporter.

I adore the film but some people in these forums act as if it's a masterpiece and scoff at anyone that differs in their opinion. Sorry to break it down for you, but this movie is not that great. I perfectly understand why some will hate it. The fact that it's not better than CR already frustrates me. It should have been because CR could have been improved on. Writers strike or not, I'd wait an extra year if I was guaranteed a developed script. Creating poor action scenes (forget the editing, they were poor) to compensate isn't something I'd ever settle for (unlike some).




There was nothing spectacular about the movie. Tosca was a waist. The sad thing is the earlier Bond films did everything better than QoS which is saying a lot. There is nothing iconic in the movie, nothing new to talk about, basically no effort anywhere except from the stunt men (whom no doubt will be disappointed with the final product considering not much is seen) Dench and Craig. It was just a typical run-of-the-mill action movie with James Bond in it. I heavily doubt there was any imagery that the general audience left with that lingered. I think that's why many are disappointed.

This movie should have gone some way to establish a new iconography for the series, being a reboot and all but instead we're still saddled with homages from the sixties and what not. Anything new or original, we steal from Bourne. Lazy filmaking in my opinion. My fear is that audiences aren't stupid, QoS will make money, but that was to be expected 'cause of CR. I doubt B23 can be as successful no matter how good it turns out to be.

P.S - Did the producers miss a trick with Cosio? I loved him, a natural Bond villain and should have had a larger part. Loved the way he spoke, his demeanor, and had tremendous screen presence. 'He had a beautiful Russian wife...(leans in) a daaancer'. Just the way he says that line.

Thank you. Finally, some common sense injected into this discussion. Look, once again, I don't mind an action/revenge movie, just don't have the cast and crew go out there and pretend that this is anything different.

[Mr_Wint]

There was nothing spectacular about the movie. Tosca was a waist. The sad thing is the earlier Bond films did everything better than QoS which is saying a lot. There is nothing iconic in the movie, nothing new to talk about, basically no effort anywhere except from the stunt men (whom no doubt will be disappointed with the final product considering not much is seen) Dench and Craig. It was just a typical run-of-the-mill action movie with James Bond in it. I heavily doubt there was any imagery that the general audience left with that lingered. I think that's why many are disappointed.

That's exactly what I feel. There wasn't a single scene I cared about, or wanted to see again, after my first viewing. I've never experienced that before with a Bondfilm.

[Eddie Burns]

Sad isn't it?

I enjoyed the movie but at the same time feel conned. I love the risks that the production team are taking with Bond. But this was a half-hearted attempt at making a worthy sequel. A cast of Almaric, Craig, Dench, Cosio, Forster (even though I don't really rate him), Haggis I'd expect more. I don't want Q/Moneypenny back, don't want submarine bases back, don't want the gadgets back. I want a good Bond story with engaging characters. Just don't give me a 'bullet' of a Bond film trying to paper over the cracks with nonsensical action. And please... No more homages. Some fresh iconography... how about making an effort next time, creatively?

The problem with cinema/Hollywood is the lack of really memorable iconography in it's films. Creatively, they all work in a bubble. Is dan Bradley the only good 2nd Unit out there? Aren't there any other ways to shoot action?

[Turn]

I think part of the problem with the expectations for QoS was how high CR set the bar. It was a critical and box office smash that not only relaunched the series, it made it relevant again, renewed interest for some fans and audiences and kick started it for others in a way no other reboot film in the series has.

There was really no way QoS was going to be able to match that freshness, which seems indicative in many of the reviews and some fan reaction. I think it was brave to stay in the direction they did. It would have been easy to reintroduce Q and Moneypenny and the gadgets and all that. The film would have been attacked in a different way then.

I liked QoS a lot and I want to see it again soon to reevaluate it even more because I know there's a lot more there than I picked up on on first viewing. As big a fan as I am, I did not feel that way about any other film in the series, including CR.

One other thing I wonder: I don't know how many people on these boards have clamored for the "proper" follow-up to OHMSS we never got. QoS does this as a sequel, more or less, to CR. If this was 37 years ago, would people feel the same way they do about this?

[00Twelve]

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job.

For your information, I happen to have been to Siena and (Hildy, MkB, you can back me up on this) what you see on the screen is purely Siena. No trick photography, no forced perspectives. And let me tell you-- see it in person and you'll change your tune. It's a beautiful town, very old and as culturally rich as one could hope for. I was captivated by seeing Bond there. I've wanted to see a Bond movie use Siena as a location for 7 years. It was a dream come true. And it looks just as great onscreen. No, Forster didn't (nor could he) make Siena look any less recognizable.

[whaleman]

I love the Bond series as does everyone else. Casino Royal was made for Bond fans, and not for the 14-16 year olds who just got through watching the Transformers. Obviously, Marc Forester wanted to appeal to those non-Bond fans and made in essence, Transporter 4. Bond running around shooting for 100 minutes is a Bad Brosnan Bond movie (was there ever a good one?) without the world domination plot. I agreed that this should have been a revenge movie, but let’s have some substance please. This was not even on par with License to Kill.

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job. I heard such wonderful thing about the famous opera house in Austria. Too bad Marc was not able to capture its beauty. If you’re going to give me non stop no plot action, make it visually stimulating.

Why bring in an art house director to make an action movie? He added nothing to the series. I hear rumors that Michael Bay is going to direct a remake of Pride and Prejudice. Why not? Forster thought he could direct action.

True Bond fans should be insulted by this mess.

I also did not like this movie and was very disappointed. Maybe Casino Royale was too good, but even after lowering my expectation from reading many negative reviews, I still liked it less than I anticipated. At the risk of being lynched, I would have to rank this one in my bottom 5 in the official series. I'm also very surprised that the movie seems to have been received very well by other true Bond fans. Maybe after taking some time to digest the movie, I will watch it again and hopefully enjoy it a little more.

[Captain Tightpants]

True Bond fans should be insulted by this mess.

No, true Bond fans should be open-minded about other peoples' opinions. If they should be insulted by anything, it's by other fans trying to ram their opinions down everyone's throats because they can't grasp the concept that when it comes to opinions, there is no right and wrong. Your ignorance and disrespect for others is what is in dire need of reairing. I'm almost tempted to wish that you'll hate every Bond film from here on in simply for your blithe arrogance, but doing so would contradict my opinions about being open-minded about this sort of thing.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I came out of QoS loving it, having been totally blown away by the style, the direction, the acting, the writing, et al. Then I read some of the negative reviews and couldn't believe I'd seen the same movie. I suppose those who hate it will never understand why those of us who love it, do, just as we can't understand why they don't.

I feel the same way from the other perspective. I liked Quantum Of Solace for the most part, but what I did not like, I absolutely hated, which takes a lot of the enjoyment out of the film. As a result, I can't see why so many are over the moon on QOS. And they're so much so that, even though I liked the film, I find myself siding more with those that did not like it/hated it--if that makes any sense.

In my opinion, this revenge thriller is nowhere near as good as Timothy Dalton's Licence To Kill, which got the pissed off, avenging Bond right along with having a good script, excellent stunts, steady photography, and sound editing.

[Jet Set Willy]

Something curious happened to me on the third viewing. I became bored half way through, and started picking faults with the film. Maybe the bad reviews have finally gotten to my subconcious, so I was looking for faults, or maybe the film wasn't that good in the first place, but I was living in denial, and couldn't, wouldn't, accept QoS as being anything less than CR, after waiting 2 long years for this.

I actually enjoyed the first half more than the second this time round (something which I think is opposite to most people's experience of watching QoS).

Still love the Bourne-type filming with the Aston car chase, and the rooftop chase. I actually really like the opening credits too (despite the song). I really love the fight scene in the apartment, but after that I began to lose interest. The boat chase wasn't as good on third viewing, and the opera scene actually began to annoy me, not because of how poor it is, but because it was a small glimmer, a glimpse into what QoS should have been. Spying, espionage, detective work, suspense, tension, build-up.

We had plenty of this in CR, yet it was dropped in QoS in favour of more action. I just watched TBU again, and forgotten how much detective work and intelligence is within this film, despite the overlong action chase scenes, whereas QoS has mostly action, and very little else on offer.

EON had hit the jackpot with CR. Somehow they had finally stumbled on a winning formula, yet they've gone and thrown it straight back out of the water with this one, reverting back to OTT action, and less on story. The plane scene reeked of Brosnan, even if it was better made than anything seen in the Brosnan era. And the scene with Bond escaping in the hotel, bumping into M in the corridor, then conveniently getting into Camille's car outside came across as messy, clumsy. So did the scene with Felix straight after it. As soon as things calm down, and we get some nice exchanges between Felix and Bond at the bar, this is once again dropped very quickly in favour of loud machine guns.

The final scenes work for me, in the hotel (Ken Adam anyone?), the rape scene, the brutal fights, fire everywhere, Greene being dumped in the middle of the desert, etc. And the last scenes with the boyfriend, then M were good too.

So for me, the film starts great, and ends great, but gets lost somewhere in the middle. My advice to EON. If you were stuck for a script with the writers strike, a little hint for you. You should have picked up YOLT and TMWTGG. Two totally untapped Fleming novels, which would have served as far better stories than what you gave us instead.

Damn you EON. At least another 2 years to wait now, to see if you can improve on what you started with CR, because sadly with QoS, you didn't. The warning signs were there looong before the film came out. They were there the minute it was announced Arnold wasn't doing the song, and then the fears were confirmed once hearing that pathetic mess.

[SecretAgentFan]

Maybe the bad reviews have finally gotten to my subconcious.

Maybe.

[Jet Set Willy]

Maybe the bad reviews have finally gotten to my subconcious.

Maybe.

I'm not ruling out that possibility.

[Safari Suit]

Could those of us feeling a little annoyed by these rantings try a new tact to try and stem them. It is called not replying.

I think this is the smartest thing you've ever written.

Sadly, I'm undermining the intelligence of your statement by pointing that out, but there you go.

[Jet Set Willy]

Could those of us feeling a little annoyed by these rantings try a new tact to try and stem them. It is called not replying.

I think this is the smartest thing you've ever written.

Sadly, I'm undermining the intelligence of your statement by pointing that out, but there you go.

So a criticism of the film is a `ranting' now is it, and should be avoided and ignored at all costs? Sorry, I thought this was a forum to debate such things, not a back-slapping, self-congratulating forum on all things positive....

Edited by Jet Set Willy, 19 November 2008 - 09:04 AM.

[blueman]

Could those of us feeling a little annoyed by these rantings try a new tact to try and stem them. It is called not replying.

I think this is the smartest thing you've ever written.

Sadly, I'm undermining the intelligence of your statement by pointing that out, but there you go.

So a criticism of the film is a `ranting' now is it, and should be avoided and ignored at all costs? Sorry, I thought this was a forum to debate such things, not a back-slapping, self-congratulating forum on all things positive....

You go with your bad self!

Those are very interesting comments about a third viewing, I'm still holding the line at two ('til payday ). The (to paraphrase, apologies if it's not quite the real McCoy) as bad as the Brosnan years POV about action... small confession here, I like a lot of the action in those films (just not the lead or the films, lol), they tend to stick out for me more than other action scenes from films of that era. And the weaker ones, I think, could've been improved had they QOS's editing team (some of CR's action too IMO).

I'm having a growing reaction to CR due to QOS: actually lessening it in my mind after seeing what a more capable director can do with similar material (rewriting Haggis was a great first step IMO, Haggis structures broadly very well, but I like QOS's scene-to-scene tighter plotting much better). I still appreciate CR for what it did, but I sure do love QOS for expanding on that foundation in all the right - for me anyway - ways.

But third viewing, hmmm, something to look forward to, one way or the other.

[Safari Suit]

Could those of us feeling a little annoyed by these rantings try a new tact to try and stem them. It is called not replying.

I think this is the smartest thing you've ever written.

Sadly, I'm undermining the intelligence of your statement by pointing that out, but there you go.

So a criticism of the film is a `ranting' now is it, and should be avoided and ignored at all costs? Sorry, I thought this was a forum to debate such things, not a back-slapping, self-congratulating forum on all things positive....

No. I'm all up for debate. But sadly most of the bad reviews of the film are not prompting the debate they deserve, they are generally descending into slagging matches with less human compassion than the average Norman Tebbit speach. I have no trouble in advocating the end of comments made purely to prevoke ire, even if it does turn the forum into a load of "back-slapping" crap.

[Jet Set Willy]

Could those of us feeling a little annoyed by these rantings try a new tact to try and stem them. It is called not replying.

I think this is the smartest thing you've ever written.

Sadly, I'm undermining the intelligence of your statement by pointing that out, but there you go.

So a criticism of the film is a `ranting' now is it, and should be avoided and ignored at all costs? Sorry, I thought this was a forum to debate such things, not a back-slapping, self-congratulating forum on all things positive....

No. I'm all up for debate. But sadly most of the bad reviews of the film are not prompting the debate they deserve, they are generally descending into slagging matches with less human compassion than the average Norman Tebbit speach. I have no trouble in advocating the end of comments made purely to prevoke ire, even if it does turn the forum into a load of "back-slapping" crap.

I agree. Most of the negative reviews I've read are total BS, and so OTT. The film, despite its flaws, is still damn good. Hell, I have it ranked in my top 5 (maybe even 2nd). It's just that I feel something was missing with QoS that could have made the film even better than CR. I waited 2 long years for this, and feel slightly disaapointed by it after all the waiting and hype. Guess my expectations were very high after CR.

With Batman Begins, they managed to go one step better with TDK. I guess I was hoping for the same with QoS. As it is, I get a film that is better than the rest of the series, but still not as good as CR, and just wondered, with a bit more time and thought, this could have been achievable.

[Lazenby]

Bottom line. The movie was a disaster and if you think that it was a masterpiece, then you are obviously striken with ADD and cannot sit through a movie that has more than a 30 second dialog scene. Sorry, its just the truth. This movie is on par with Tomorrow never dies.

[Zorin Industries]

Bottom line. The movie was a disaster and if you think that it was a masterpiece, then you are obviously striken with ADD and cannot sit through a movie that has more than a 30 second dialog scene. Sorry, its just the truth. This movie is on par with Tomorrow never dies.

That's only your opinion. Some of the rest of us think otherwise. And when will you stop being disingenuous enough to stop dictating people ignore a film you will no doubt buy on DVD? That's the only "disaster" at play here.

[Lazenby]

Bottom line. The movie was a disaster and if you think that it was a masterpiece, then you are obviously striken with ADD and cannot sit through a movie that has more than a 30 second dialog scene. Sorry, its just the truth. This movie is on par with Tomorrow never dies.

That's only your opinion. Some of the rest of us think otherwise. And when will you stop being disingenuous enough to stop dictating people ignore a film you will no doubt buy on DVD? That's the only "disaster" at play here.

I will not purchase this on DVD unless there was 2 hours of cut footage that actually was entertaining and made sense. Honestly, did you like Casino Royal? If you did, tell me why. Those are the reasons why I probably did not like this movie.

[Zorin Industries]

Bottom line. The movie was a disaster and if you think that it was a masterpiece, then you are obviously striken with ADD and cannot sit through a movie that has more than a 30 second dialog scene. Sorry, its just the truth. This movie is on par with Tomorrow never dies.

That's only your opinion. Some of the rest of us think otherwise. And when will you stop being disingenuous enough to stop dictating people ignore a film you will no doubt buy on DVD? That's the only "disaster" at play here.

I will not purchase this on DVD unless there was 2 hours of cut footage that actually was entertaining and made sense. Honestly, did you like Casino Royal? If you did, tell me why. Those are the reasons why I probably did not like this movie.

My thoughts on CASINO ROYALE...

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=35499

And my thoughts on QUANTUM OF SOLACE...

http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry942476

Why on earth would the reason for me liking ROYALE be the reasons why you hated SOLACE?

[HildebrandRarity]

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job.

For your information, I happen to have been to Siena and (Hildy, MkB, you can back me up on this) what you see on the screen is purely Siena. No trick photography, no forced perspectives. And let me tell you-- see it in person and you'll change your tune. It's a beautiful town, very old and as culturally rich as one could hope for. I was captivated by seeing Bond there. I've wanted to see a Bond movie use Siena as a location for 7 years. It was a dream come true. And it looks just as great onscreen. No, Forster didn't (nor could he) make Siena look any less recognizable.

Lazenby is, of course, full of .

The blue and green shutters outside each window on that town are exactly the same in my photographs as they are in the film. Siena's got narrow enough streets with buildings which have overhanging roofs for it to be *possible* to jump from one roof to another.

I don't know where Lazenby is from but he/she/it is obviously culturally stunted and hasn't been anywhere expect, perhaps, Hoboken, N.J.

[Lazenby]

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job.

For your information, I happen to have been to Siena and (Hildy, MkB, you can back me up on this) what you see on the screen is purely Siena. No trick photography, no forced perspectives. And let me tell you-- see it in person and you'll change your tune. It's a beautiful town, very old and as culturally rich as one could hope for. I was captivated by seeing Bond there. I've wanted to see a Bond movie use Siena as a location for 7 years. It was a dream come true. And it looks just as great onscreen. No, Forster didn't (nor could he) make Siena look any less recognizable.

Lazenby is, of course, full of .

The blue and green shutters outside each window on that town are exactly the same in my photographs as they are in the film. Siena's got narrow enough streets with buildings which have overhanging roofs for it to be *possible* to jump from one roof to another.

I don't know where Lazenby is from but he/she/it is obviously culturally stunted and hasn't been anywhere expect, perhaps, Hoboken, N.J.

Don't knock Hoboken, some interesting night life

[HildebrandRarity]

Note to the stupid ones who can't count:

Take a stop watch into the movie theatre and then clock the action scenes and then come back and report.

Hint: If what you timed is less than, o, say, 52 minutes, then - by logical conclusion - the "action" does NOT comprise the majority of the movie.

If you chose to show your stupidity, then how can you blame some of us for thinking you're a ing idiot?

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job.

For your information, I happen to have been to Siena and (Hildy, MkB, you can back me up on this) what you see on the screen is purely Siena. No trick photography, no forced perspectives. And let me tell you-- see it in person and you'll change your tune. It's a beautiful town, very old and as culturally rich as one could hope for. I was captivated by seeing Bond there. I've wanted to see a Bond movie use Siena as a location for 7 years. It was a dream come true. And it looks just as great onscreen. No, Forster didn't (nor could he) make Siena look any less recognizable.

Lazenby is, of course, full of .

The blue and green shutters outside each window on that town are exactly the same in my photographs as they are in the film. Siena's got narrow enough streets with buildings which have overhanging roofs for it to be *possible* to jump from one roof to another.

I don't know where Lazenby is from but he/she/it is obviously culturally stunted and hasn't been anywhere expect, perhaps, Hoboken, N.J.

Don't knock Hoboken, some interesting night life

...it still doesn't answer whether you're a culturally stunted member of the human race.

Do you own a stop watch, Laz?

If not, buy one...then buy another ticket to see Quantum!

Spend some money, for sakes! Get a life. Go out and get laid and then treat the girl to one awsome movie. A b.j. will be guaranteed after.

[Lazenby]

Note to the stupid ones who can't count:

Take a stop watch into the movie theatre and then clock the action scenes and then come back and report.

Hint: If what you timed is less than, o, say, 52 minutes, then - by logical conclusion - the "action" does NOT comprise the majority of the movie.

If you chose to show your stupidity, then how can you blame some of us for thinking you're a ing idiot?

All I have to say to you is: "sticks and stones"

[dee-bee-five]

Bottom line. The movie was a disaster and if you think that it was a masterpiece, then you are obviously striken with ADD and cannot sit through a movie that has more than a 30 second dialog scene. Sorry, its just the truth.

No, the bottom line is that you're talking rot. You know nothing about me, my tastes, my mental state, or anything else about me simply from the fact I rank QoS so highly.

On the other hand, I would submit one can gather a fair bit about someone who asserts "if you think it was a masterpiece then you are obviously striken (sic) with ADD."

[HildebrandRarity]

Note to the stupid ones who can't count:

Take a stop watch into the movie theatre and then clock the action scenes and then come back and report.

Hint: If what you timed is less than, o, say, 52 minutes, then - by logical conclusion - the "action" does NOT comprise the majority of the movie.

If you chose to show your stupidity, then how can you blame some of us for thinking you're a ing idiot?

All I have to say to you is: "sticks and stones"

Did I mention any names?

LOL!

[Lazenby]

If not, buy one...then buy another ticket to see Quantum!

Spend some money, for sakes! Get a life. Go out and get laid and then treat the girl to one awsome movie. A b.j. will be guaranteed after.
[/quote]

I did bring a girl to this awsome move. The result was that I received no sexual favors. I'm going through my own Quantum of Solace

[quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='959774' date='19 November 2008 - 16:41'][quote name='Lazenby' post='959761' date='19 November 2008 - 20:36'][quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='959751' date='19 November 2008 - 16:32']Note to the stupid ones who can't count:

Take a stop watch into the movie theatre and then clock the action scenes and then come back and report.

Hint: If what you timed is less than, o, say, 52 minutes, then - by logical conclusion - the "action" does NOT comprise the majority of the movie.

If you chose to show your stupidity, then how can you blame some of us for thinking you're a ing idiot?[/quote]


All I have to say to you is: "sticks and stones"
[/quote]



Did I mention any names?

LOL!


[/quote]



No, but I feel one or two zingers coming