Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Capone With Further Tales Of His QUANTUM OF SOLACE London Adventure!!

FIRST FUCKERS by unionJACKass.webs.com	Oct 10th, 2008 02:38:42 PM

Capone by unionJACKass.webs.com	Oct 10th, 2008 02:39:42 PM
Get yourself up Soho. ;)
I'm liking these reports capone by xmanse	Oct 10th, 2008 02:54:26 PM
I live in London and it's nice to see a guy from the US geek out at British stuff. I thought you considered all the cool film history to come from you guys. Nice to be proven wrong. You really see the broader scope of cinema. I also always wondered whether Americans took Bond seriously or saw it as a big joke, or a way of saying, "Hey look! The Brits are trying to make an action film again, let's go stare!". Again, glad to be pleasantly surprised.
100 - 105 minutes only? by Spacesheik	Oct 10th, 2008 03:30:32 PM
That would make it the shortest Bond film ever. What's the deal?
I wonder who had sex with more men......Daniel Craig... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Oct 10th, 2008 04:12:35 PM
...or Robert Downey Jr. in the 80s.
Officialy erect by Stuntcock Mike	Oct 10th, 2008 04:30:58 PM
One month to go.
105 mins - that sucks by kwisatzhaderach	Oct 10th, 2008 04:48:37 PM

Is that mansion where they shot the FRWL opening? by epitone	Oct 10th, 2008 04:55:53 PM
Also, wouldn't 105 minutes make it the shortest Bond film in history?
Picture of the men's toilets sign? by SUPERJIM	Oct 10th, 2008 05:10:53 PM
Why? Do you not have men's shitters over in the U.S? Was there some holiday romance going on in there? What am I missing?
105 minutes? by Greenleaf1	Oct 10th, 2008 05:16:46 PM
I don't believe it, even from the guy on set....that's way too f'n short, and short movies that are supposed to be epic end up being awful (X-Men 3 anyone?)....hopefully this movie will get longer magically.
Dr.No, Goldfinger, and From Russia...are under 2 hours. by IAmJack'sUserID	Oct 10th, 2008 06:00:06 PM
And those are only a few that I looked up. Still though, not quite as short as this one. Hope that just means a tightly made action movie but with good character moments.
105 minutes more then enough by Evil Hobbit	Oct 10th, 2008 06:07:50 PM
so many movies these days suffer from going on forever and thus losing momentum. 100 Minutes is a great length for any action movie.
Bourne, James Bourne by Prossor	Oct 10th, 2008 07:15:12 PM
will cranky-menopause judi dench once again way too much screentime or will bond run around like the energizer bunny again?
105 minutes concerns me, Admiral by Cpt Kirks 2pay	Oct 10th, 2008 07:25:25 PM
For a movie that is packing in so much in such a realtively short time, it has got me suddenly thinking that this film could fail. Check this out... a movie that has at least twice as much action as Casino Royale, a multi layered plot premise which sounds sooo very complex and constantly developing, plus we also are supposed to get a movie which is further developing and exploring the character of Bond, like Casino Royale did an extending it. So you got all this ground to cover, plus you want the film to still have room to breathe and maintain a certain epic feel, which is one of the things that makes Bond unique and like has been said above, lifts it above a mediocre in one eye out the other standard action movie. I personally just don't see these guys cramming all of this into this short running time. What feels like it should be one of the longer Bonds has been stated by other websites as being officially the SHORTEST of ALL Bond movies. I'm not casting judgement on Cumquat of Sausage and jumping to conclusions about it, all I'm saying with all of this, is that all things considered, I have great doubts about this movie now, when before I had great confidence. I hope it all works out extremely well, I'm just not sure it will.
I hear the Quantum of Solace game KICKS ASS! by Maniaq	Oct 10th, 2008 07:39:46 PM
I've already read reviews talking along the lines of "next Goldeneye" - if you know anything about gamming, you know what high praise that kind of comment is. Of course, that's probably not the first time that's been used and it may fall short of the acclaim, in the hands of the masses - but be prepared for (yet another) resurgence in the Bond franchise...
105 mins=perfect length by odo19	Oct 10th, 2008 09:41:45 PM
Come on, you guys know it. I'm tired of good action movies being reduced to passable action movies because of an unnecessary tacked on half hour. So many just lose momentum way before the end. This running time sounds just right. Casino Royal could have been alot better a half hour shorter. Forster has the right idea.
Dickblood by PrincessLeias_Poohole	Oct 11th, 2008 01:35:11 AM
I believe it was you who,s had more men up their backsides in the 80,s.
Brown's..... by Grando	Oct 11th, 2008 02:50:03 AM
Is the oldest 5 star hotel in London. Do you really think a hotel that only opened in 1837 was the oldest in London? This is the UK! Not some n00b country with only just over 200 years under it's belt..... ;)
That coffin looked burnt, by BenBraddock	Oct 11th, 2008 04:15:08 AM
must have been from the fire a couple of years back. I remember the 007 stage set was gutted. Anyway, nice photos and interesting article. Lucky you.
Judging by the amount of comments... by SUPERJIM	Oct 11th, 2008 09:09:11 AM
Not a lot of interest in this set visit. Do you think it's because there's not a lot interest in the movie? The report? The contributor? The fact that it is a weekend?
Lack of comments is mainly due to... by football	Oct 11th, 2008 12:38:15 PM
... there being plenty of other sites where Bond fans can air their views, Superjim, and AICN is renown for its geeky comic book, torture porn leanings where talkbackers like to discuss the size of their manhood and how much jism is in their balls. This Bond film is probably too high-brow for most of them. Anyway, I welcome these reports... just tell us more please.
Also America is the last place on earth to get the movie by football	Oct 11th, 2008 12:45:14 PM
I think they're about a year away from its release!
Mens Toilet? by REDD	Oct 12th, 2008 01:56:59 PM
Was there a Glory Hole like the one in Paddys Pub (in Philadelphia)? LOL!
Size does matter by Manatee	Oct 12th, 2008 02:14:58 PM
I must admit that I'm concerned about the length, also. Mostly because this script was written on the quick; Haggis turned over his polished version just before the writer's strike began. Also, Forster has spoken publicly about how difficult the editing process has been. He was dictated a length by the producers and has struggled to meet it. I don't mind a shorter Bond film, but these various factors make the length seem more like a necessity than a creative choice. Let's hope that EON wasn't merely trying to continue the momentum of CR by pushing QOS out before it was ready.
Craig bond...no thanks..... by j2talk	Oct 13th, 2008 08:04:55 AM
seriously....I cant be the ONLY person who thought Casino Royale was a decent action movie, but a Bond movie?!?!? sorry NO!!!!!It was missing too many aspects of Bond- the women, the gadgets-a Bond movie without Q or Moneypenny??? You could rename Bond and it wouldnt be missing anything....
j2talk same here by Prossor	Oct 13th, 2008 05:24:52 PM
Casino Royale was the worst Bond movie, because it wasn't a Bond movie. A Hulk-looking motherfucker with a potato face and blonde hair, should have been cast as a fuckin bond villain.

Talkbacks

Capone With Further Tales Of His QUANTUM OF SOLACE London Adventure!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks