<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Review: Quantum Of Solace</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cinemoose.com/review-quantum-of-solace/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cinemoose.com/review-quantum-of-solace/#utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=review-quantum-of-solace</link>
	<description>Down and dirty blog about filmmaking, movies and the entertainment industry.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:35:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: yemek tarifleri</title>
		<link>http://cinemoose.com/review-quantum-of-solace/comment-page-1/#comment-360</link>
		<dc:creator>yemek tarifleri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cinemoose.com/?p=130#comment-360</guid>
		<description>I really like how so many character points were captured in very little moments. The small conversations between Felix and Bond, M and Bond etc I thought showcased incredibly chemistry between powerful actors.

Plus the little tweaking that the series has always done, like toying around with ‘environmentalism is evil’ was hilarious.

I admit I have not seen any bournes yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really like how so many character points were captured in very little moments. The small conversations between Felix and Bond, M and Bond etc I thought showcased incredibly chemistry between powerful actors.</p>
<p>Plus the little tweaking that the series has always done, like toying around with ‘environmentalism is evil’ was hilarious.</p>
<p>I admit I have not seen any bournes yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jenny R.</title>
		<link>http://cinemoose.com/review-quantum-of-solace/comment-page-1/#comment-349</link>
		<dc:creator>Jenny R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cinemoose.com/?p=130#comment-349</guid>
		<description>Great website, I really like what you have done.  Keep up the great work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great website, I really like what you have done.  Keep up the great work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tony</title>
		<link>http://cinemoose.com/review-quantum-of-solace/comment-page-1/#comment-342</link>
		<dc:creator>tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cinemoose.com/?p=130#comment-342</guid>
		<description>quantum of solace sucks donkey balls</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>quantum of solace sucks donkey balls</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Suave Hippopotamus</title>
		<link>http://cinemoose.com/review-quantum-of-solace/comment-page-1/#comment-341</link>
		<dc:creator>Suave Hippopotamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:54:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cinemoose.com/?p=130#comment-341</guid>
		<description>Man, I completely disagree with you.  I just saw this movie and thought it was top-to-bottom fantastic.  Like the evil Constant Gardener.  It is the punk James Bond.

I thought everything it tried to do worked very well.  The big question I had going into it, was &quot;is this james bond&quot; hearing all the bourne comments.  I admit in the beginning so of the TV commercial cutting threw me off, but I relaxed into it once the production style started to take effect.  Daniel Craig is fantastic, and most importantly Dangerous which is what Bond should be.  Not Roger Moore.  His time was the 70s.  The criticism about the women, gadgets etc.. is all beside the point right?  Isn&#039;t it about story.  Which I thought was good.  Action moments driven by character, the pretty ballsy story-telling -- starting in the middle, not as much sentimentality.  Aren&#039;t these things to be admired?  

I think Casino Royale was a much more inviting introductory movie (funny to say that), but I thought QoS was a perfectly taut movie that rose to Casino Royale&#039;s level at least and will be very rewatchable.  You can&#039;t argue with 1:40.  The example I like to give is you shouldn&#039;t hear the live jam version of a song first.  You need to know the album version first before you can appreciate the nuances of live jam.  Maybe QoS is like that.

For example, think about all the things they were trying to do in the late 90s with those failed Pierce Brosnan movies.  Make Bond more internationalist, check.  QoS did better.  Bring in a female action lead, check.  QoS it actually felt natural.  Show vulnerability, check. The little moment of Bond going in for the kiss/ the redemption at the end was poetic.  Jeffrey Wright worked very well also.

I really like how so many character points were captured in very little moments. The small conversations between Felix and Bond, M and Bond etc I thought showcased incredibly chemistry between powerful actors.

Plus the little tweaking that the series has always done, like toying around with &#039;environmentalism is evil&#039; was hilarious.

I admit I have not seen any bournes yet.

Anyways, totally disagree with  you as always.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man, I completely disagree with you.  I just saw this movie and thought it was top-to-bottom fantastic.  Like the evil Constant Gardener.  It is the punk James Bond.</p>
<p>I thought everything it tried to do worked very well.  The big question I had going into it, was &#8220;is this james bond&#8221; hearing all the bourne comments.  I admit in the beginning so of the TV commercial cutting threw me off, but I relaxed into it once the production style started to take effect.  Daniel Craig is fantastic, and most importantly Dangerous which is what Bond should be.  Not Roger Moore.  His time was the 70s.  The criticism about the women, gadgets etc.. is all beside the point right?  Isn&#8217;t it about story.  Which I thought was good.  Action moments driven by character, the pretty ballsy story-telling &#8212; starting in the middle, not as much sentimentality.  Aren&#8217;t these things to be admired?  </p>
<p>I think Casino Royale was a much more inviting introductory movie (funny to say that), but I thought QoS was a perfectly taut movie that rose to Casino Royale&#8217;s level at least and will be very rewatchable.  You can&#8217;t argue with 1:40.  The example I like to give is you shouldn&#8217;t hear the live jam version of a song first.  You need to know the album version first before you can appreciate the nuances of live jam.  Maybe QoS is like that.</p>
<p>For example, think about all the things they were trying to do in the late 90s with those failed Pierce Brosnan movies.  Make Bond more internationalist, check.  QoS did better.  Bring in a female action lead, check.  QoS it actually felt natural.  Show vulnerability, check. The little moment of Bond going in for the kiss/ the redemption at the end was poetic.  Jeffrey Wright worked very well also.</p>
<p>I really like how so many character points were captured in very little moments. The small conversations between Felix and Bond, M and Bond etc I thought showcased incredibly chemistry between powerful actors.</p>
<p>Plus the little tweaking that the series has always done, like toying around with &#8216;environmentalism is evil&#8217; was hilarious.</p>
<p>I admit I have not seen any bournes yet.</p>
<p>Anyways, totally disagree with  you as always.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
