"Quickness" of Solace
 

While not a determination of quality of the movie, but many people find this interesting.

According to CommanderBond.net (reporting what other sites say), the run time for Quantum of Solace is 106 Minutes, making it the shortest Bond movie ever (which is interesting, as Casino Royale is the longest Bond movie).

While this surprises me, I am still psyched about the movie.

Thoughts?

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

As long as the movie's good, I don't care if it's under two hours. Casino Royale actually could have used a little trimming, especially at the end.

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

I wonder if the speed may have been studio interference? I remember reading around the time Casino Royale was released people complained about the length of the film.

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

^^ The director said early on that he was setting out to intentionally make the movie under two hours.

Oh, I agree. Sometimes I hate it when a movie drags on for two and a half hours. My butt can get numb. It just seems jarring and surprising considering the length of CR, which QoS is a direct sequel of.

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

I thought OHMSS was the longest Bond movie to date?

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

Casino beat OHMSS by 4 minutes.

OHMSS: 140 min
Casino Royale: 144 min

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

I think it'll at least be a C+/B- film. Not expecting more though.

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

^ Agreed.

It's odd: I love OHMSS and Casino Royale is pretty similar to it, yet I can't stand Casino Royale. I use it to cure insomnia.

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

Blasphemy!

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

As long as it's good and doesn't shread plot/details from it's story like, say...X-Men 3, it doesn't matter to me.

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

I don't love OHMSS, but I've gotten so I like it for more than just music and photography.

As for CR ... I don't think I'll ever see it all the way through in one sitting without having to fastforward the hell out of it. The one time I was able to almost enjoy it, I had to break it into two separate viewings.

It is kind of funny you bring these up, because these are the two movies where I don't think of the main character as being Bond at all, just a guy who happens to have the same name. The aged-looking brat in CR has less maturity than Bond would have at half his age, if he is anything like the Bond described in Pearson's wonderful pseudo-bio of the character.

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

wow...CR didn't feel that long to me. I've seen every Bond since The Spy Who Loved Me in the theater and as a kid some of them felt really long.
I also have no problem with a zippy new Bond. I find it a little silly when people are really happy that a movie is 3 hours. (like the petition to make Watchmen 3 hours and TDK)

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

I'm not holding my breath on how well Quantum of Solace will measure up against Casino Royale, but then again I found Licence to Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies to be underrated Bond movies that were better than their predecessors that I never understood the love for (especially The Living Daylights that had really horrid and uninspired central villains; Orumov, Onnatopp, and Trevalyan were much more memorable).

I'd dislike the short running time if over excessive editing creates too many glaring plotholes, but a relatively short running but entertaining movie would be better than a overlong and horribly bloated one (see At World's End as a good recent example).

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

To be honest, there's at least twenty minutes I'd cut out of Casino Royale. Most of which involve Bond sitting around recouperating. I don't think anyone goes to see a Bond movie to watch Bond lying in a bed or sitting in a wheelchair doing nothing for twenty minutes.

Re: "Quickness" of Solace
 

106 minutes? ACK! IMHO, one of the reasons CR was so great is because the full story could be told properly. Short movies always leave out too many details, making it feel forced and rushed. I prefer a movie to have a minimal running time of 2 hours.