User Reviews (1,267)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    I went twice to see this movie. First on the Berlin Premiere, second time a week later. Why? Well, on premiere night I had tickets in row 7, of a huge theatre. I was hugely excited to see the new Bond (as I always have been for the past 25 some years). But hey, I had to LEAVE the theatre after 15 minutes. You simply can't watch that fast edited MTV Style movie in row 7 (!). No chance, absolutely. Okay so I went again, this time a nice seat all the way at the end of the same theatre. I could endure the MTV cuts, but not the massacre the producers did to Bond. (the director can't be held responsible, since the producers chose him and not vice versa).

    In 21 previous Bond films, one could really like the British super spy. His character, his smartness, some cool one liners, and yes, Ms. Broccoli, we the audience loved the gadgets. We loved Moneypenny, Q and M. Why did you take it all away? Why? We may never know...

    This Bond is just another action flick with a really mediocre storyline. For heavens sake, change the characters name, and you are not in one single moment reminded of the great super spy. Why bother then?

    For the action: Filming hand held and edit MTV style does not mean action automatically! The great Frankenheimer knew that, when he filmed some of the best car chases in "Ronin", Foster probably never saw that classic....

    For a reminder, since it comes up so many times in reviews on IMDb, Bond and Borne are two completely different franchises. Borne is chasing after his history, while Bond is saving the world. Just because Borne was such a huge success, don't try imitate him. Arrgh what a terrible film, it is such a shame. Regardless of what the box office says!

    P.S. and then you even dare to take away the gun barrel montage in the beginning, and no more "Bond, James Bond. Are you people mental?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Thought this was one of the worst Bond movies ever. Nothing of the magic that made many of the other 007 movies so special was to be found here. The cutting of the film is terrible. masses of 2 second sequences thrown together - for no apparent reason. (as the movie is so boring I found myself counting "one...two...) over and over again. If the action is poor it appears a cheap trick to try to "create interest" by chopping it all up and using 25 cameras to shoot that which has no interest. It just comes across as irritating and silly.

    The car chase sequence in the beginning might have been good, if the filming thereof had been better. What could have been fantastic was destroyed (again) by the poor cutting of the movie. masses of sub second fractions thrown together making everyone confused as to who was being chased, who crashed etc.

    The race scene in Siena was utterly stupid. The cut back and forth from the Bond action to the race action again and again was utterly unrelated and therefore pointless.

    The scene in the movie were Bond discovers the underground lake and states "he is draining all the water" as an explanation to the central "badness" that the villain is about to do is utterly laughable and silly.

    The end scenes with the building which is designed to explode step by step was the last straw. I have rarely seen anything more staged and unbelievable. I considered leaving a few times as the movie was so boring but then I thought that "can it get any worse"? and yes, it could and did.

    We want James Bond 007 back again, lets pass this "experiment" into history and forget that it ever happened.

    The previous movie Casino Royale was a good action movie, though it wasn't a Bon movie (either). The Jason Bourne formula works, but Bourne is Not Bond and this is not a Bourne movie, i don't really know how to classify other than "utterly pointless", I couldn't see any redeeming features, no plausbile plot, no interesting characters, no fantastic sceneries, awful title song, no "Bond"-ness - at all
  • This film is about James Bond cracking down a multi-national corporation that works with dictators to get a share of precious natural resources.

    "Quantum Of Solace" has an impressive opening sequence. It has high speed car chases with lots of collision and gunshots. The ultra short scenes (all under one second each) and the shaky camera gives urgency and thrill, but it is so hard to actually work out what is happening.

    There is a lot of action and adrenaline in the film, but the plot seems not to have a focus. Nor does it make sense either, as it feels like an all-action-no-information film. All Bond does is to run around the globe after his target, and viewers are left to wonder how he made it. I don't find myself caring for the plot or the characters. I don't know why this happens, but something is not right with the film and I don't know what.
  • This is the first time I ever came out of a Bond film at the cinema thinking, 'I enjoyed almost none of that.' And there was no mystery for me as to why I felt this way. I didn't have to weigh up the other pros and cons (it is not an unsophisticated film) or think far or deeply. I couldn't stand Quantum Of Solace because ninety-five percent of its action sequences are appallingly directed and edited. Endless, wobbly extreme closeups are cut together too rapidly into a meaningless dirge which prohibits you from discerning anything about the nature of the scene.

    How many cars are participating in this car chase? Will I be allowed to glimpse anyone's face in this scene other than Bond's? Will I be allowed to glimpse even Bond's face? Which boat is in front? Where is anything in relation to anything else, ever? And just what was that? That blur in front of me for the past half a second, what the hell was it? The answers to these questions respectively throughout Quantum of Solace are, 'I have no clue, no, no, I don't know, I will never know, I don't know, I still don't know.'

    I'm tired of reading any defence for the most extreme incarnation of this style of action coverage. It is purposeless obfuscation. It's anti-exciting, annoying and just plain rubbish. Bond films in particular are known for their history of spectacular action and stunts, and if you briefly consider any eighties Bond film, you'll recall that somewhere in it was a long, held shot of something amazing. People fighting on the back of an airborne plane, racing cars through Paris or pursuing each other down a mountain on skis. Compared to any one of those scenes, everything in Quantum is a disgrace, incapable of engendering marvel or wonder.

    Perhaps I should try to be less catastrophic about the direction of cinema in general and just apportion blame directly to the guy from the Bourne films whose second unit did this to Quantum, and to Marc Forster, who directed the film, and either sanctioned or did not repel the Bourne-on-steroids content. Call me Mister Insane, but I demand the context, information and sense of place delivered by even the occasional wide shot. To see how Bond kung-fu'd an elevator full of guys would be cool, right? The event happens in this film, but what you actually see is a camera jerking crazily over ten inch wide patches of dark clothing, to the accompaniment of cabbages being walloped on the soundtrack. Imagine if Bruce Lee tried to get away with this crap. And this wasn't a well considered case of indicating what had just happened by offering the impression of it rather than the depiction of it, it was simply a continuation of the house style.

    Quantum Of Solace takes anti-illuminating film-making to new, stupid lows!
  • tom-kludy14 November 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    Save your money. This movie is terrible and has nothing whatsoever to do with the iconic character of James Bond.

    Story: 0/10. The main plot was the worst of any Bond movie. Instead of saving the world, Bond is saving the people of a 3rd world country a few pennies on their water bill. Instead of fighting for the good of the free world, Bond is on a heartless revenge killing spree, and the free world is portrayed as almost universally corrupt. But the worst offense is the contrived "explosive hotel" in the middle of nowhere, in the desert. I'll bet they get a lot of tourism there! At least its made of some kind of material that burns without a single trace of smoke... -groan-!

    Characters: 1/10. Craig is terrible as bond, he has no charisma whatsoever. He broods for the entire film, never smiling, never delivering that cheeky charm that Bond should. The main Bond girl is a bundle of laughs... no wait, strike that, she's a depressing lump. The CIA girl is actually OK (thus the 1 point) but only sticks around for about 2 minutes before being killed. Felix, instead of being a smart, useful, and funny friend, is a waste of screen time and contributes nothing at all to the story. The villain does not even seem evil, just like a corrupt businessman (FAR from the world-domination-seeking villains of past). The deposed dictator is unbelievable and the implied rape scene at the end should NOT be in a bond film. M is the same as the last few Bond movies, a weak, bleeding-heart "mother" who could not possibly have the respect of MI6 agents in the real world.

    Production: 0/10. The action scenes have such short cuts that you can't focus on any of them. The result is utter confusion about who is punching whom. There are obvious and avoidable errors such as cutting between two scenes and the actors have changed positions.

    Franchise Loyalty: 0/10. Rename the main character and you would never be able to guess that this is a Bond film. You would probably guess it's a Bourne film. I don't demand the clichés such as "Bond, James Bond" (though you certainly won't find that here). But I do demand that the main character be a likable British guy showing off cool spy gadgets and attacking problems with intelligence rather than always brute force. There were no gadgets-not a single one!-and Bond was a cold-blooded murderer.

    This movie would be a below-average effort for a generic action flick. But putting the name "Bond" on it debases and defiles the Bond franchise. Those responsible for this atrocity should be ashamed of what they've done to try to turn a quick buck on a legendary franchise.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After the critically acclaimed and much successful 'Casino Royale' I had hopes that 'Quantum of Solace' could rival this years best movie so far: 'The Dark Knight'. Well... it doesn't even come close.

    There use to be a time when Bond movies where trendsetting...

    I remember when director Doug Liman some time ago said he wanted to make "Bond for a new generation" - so he dug up Jason Bourne. Several received Oscars and years later, we now have the Bond franchise mimicking the Bourne franchise instead. How ironic. If you are a Bond fan like me, and - when the endcredits roll - think to yourself that the movie you just saw had more in common with the last two Bourne-movies, than the first 21 Bond-movies, then you know there's a problem!

    On paper Quantum of Solace may be a Bond movie. But many of those things that people use to associate with Bond movies are gone. Some for no obvious purpose or reason.

    It wasn't enough for them to take away Moneypenny, Q, the gadgets, the humor and witticism, his "shaken, not stirred", the line "my name is Bond, James Bond." They even ditched the famous opening gunbarrel-sequence, and you won't hear the James Bond theme right until the very end (as in Casino Royale which - besides being 40 minutes longer - "felt" more like a Bond movie)

    And what's up with this new style of filming and editing?

    Well, they hired the editor, the stuntteam and 2nd unit director of... yes, you guessed it - the Bourne movies. So do not under any circumstance buy tickets for the first 10 rows - you will regret it. I was sitting in the 15th row at an advance fan-screening and even there I would be reaching for my seasickness-pills if I had any.

    Because with this annoying new MTV-style editing (which is suppose to add "realism") known from the Bourne-movies with shaking hand-held cameras in which you have a hard time following what really is happening on screen, especially in a crowded surrounding, you will be better off sitting as far back as possible in the theatre. Luckily this style is - unlike Bourne 2 and 3 - not incorporated into every single scene in Quantum of Solace. Far from it. But it's there, and it's very annoying, in my opinion. It actually ruined much of the first two action set-pieces for me, and by then we were only 30 minutes into the movie.

    Quantum of Solace is very fastpaced, like a Bourne/Bond-movie should be. We jump from location to location, actionsequence to actionsequence. It can be very confusing watching Bond on a rampage still dealing with "personal issues" (like Bourne). Bourne Ultimatum had a rooftop-chase. So does Quantum of Solace. Bourne Ultimatum had a fistfight in a small cluttered apartment filmed the way I mentioned earlier. Well, so does Quantum of Solace. How original!

    It's like they took some of the best parts of the two last Bournemovies and said "let's do almost the exact same thing and add something more, like letting him fly a plane." So Bond does that, in what I think is the second-best part of the movie. The best part for me, was oddly enough not an actionsequence, but when Bond for once does some real spywork on a floating operastage accompanied by a great music score. Very Bondian.

    For this, for Dennis Gassners terrific production design, for David Arnolds usual great score and for Craigs cool performance, I give it six stars.

    A note to the producers of the Bond movies: Now that you played around with Bourne, can we have 007 back for Bond 23, please?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I've bought this on DVD and I'm glad I have. The only reason I'm glad is that I can watch it again and again and see if I can find the plot anywhere. Watched it twice so far and still can't work out whats going on. The credits rolled and I thought: "Is that it?" 97 minutes were on the clock of the DVD Player.

    This is a continuation of Casino Royale and I'm not sure how to describe the film. It starts in Italy, goes to Haiti and then Bolivia. Some bloke is after oil or water? I'm still confused. If you like action without dialogue, you got it. I'm sure the total script wouldn't cover two sides of A4 paper.

    The title song, I'm sorry to say, has to be one of the worst and has no relation to the film or a mood connection either.

    This isn't the best and not the worst. Please lets have something better next time, keep it to the 2 hour mark and please lets have a plot and dialogue.
  • Ever since the two last Bourne movies came out and made a bit of money, the film industry has suffered from a severe case of ADD. It now seems mandatory for directors to partake in the George Lucas "faster-more-intense" and Paul Greengrass "shakycam-mounted-on-top-of-paint-blender" schools of film making, only now it's called "contemporary gritty action." It seems like the whole movie was shot hand held with a 200mm lens, operated by a guy with Parkinson's disease. As icing on the cake, no cut is longer than three frames.

    I guess the underlying logic is that this will make the movie more "real" and "documentary-like". The only thing it makes me feel is nauseous. I can't stand this trend in film making. To be honest, it feels like a cop out, like they can't trust their stunt team to do well enough, and have to shield their performance in shaky images and hysterical cutting. And surprise surprise, it turns out that the second unit director of this movie, Dan Bradley, worked on the last two Bourne movies.

    But technical aspects aside, the story was less than engaging, which is a shame since I have an interest in the specific MacGuffin of the movie, having even written an academic article about it.

    I think the main problem is that I don't really care about any of the characters. Craig may stare intensely and bite down as hard as he wants to, but I still don't really care about Bond. It's not that I don't like the Bond movies (I own all the other movies on DVD), I just don't buy this new story line where they try to make him into a sort of Bourne-light. I say let Bourne be Bourne, and Bond be Bond.

    Olga Kurylenko sure is pretty to look at, but her character here is about as memorable as her character in Max Payne: one big yawn. As for Mathieu Almaric, he feels a bit too pathetic to be a criminal mastermind, although I like the whole thing that they don't give him an eye patch or scars, but that he's ordinary looking.

    This was one incoherent mess of a film (what was the deal with the horse race?) that I'm not likely to watch again, nor am I likely to purchase the DVD.
  • Incomprehensible at times and Utterly Charmless, the Best one can hope for is that James Bond (Daniel Craig) has put His Feelings to Rest, has Forgiven Vesper, and can now get Right with the World of Espionage and Become the Secret Agent that He was Meant to be.

    It manages to Clear the Air for the Brooding Bond and that may be the Only Thing that is Clear in this Dismal Movie that has so Little of the Bond Feel that it cannot be Forgiven.

    The Action Scenes are more of the Post Modern, Quick Cut, Shaky Cam Nonsense that Works quite well in Very Limited Doses but is used here to Nauseating Excess that Hacks and Film School Students, and B-Movie makers have Adapted for a "Style" that has been so Overdone as to be Ridiculous. Add to that some Extreme Close Ups and all Sense of What Goes On is Lost in a Placebo of Adrenaline.

    The Film's Locations are Anything but Exotic, more like Third World Infomercials that are Used to Adopt a Hungry Child. This is a Rather Boring Bond and is about as Unexciting as a Bond could be. Given the Backstory and the Historical Template and Oodles of Money it has just Enough Empathy from Fans to Tolerate this Dull Delivery, but just Barely.

    The Title is one of the Worst for a Bond Film, as is the Opening Trademark Song, and Overall One gets the Feeling that They are in Disdain for the Character's Attributes and the Coolness that made Bond Survive over 20 Movies, 5 Actors, and 5 Decades. Its Acceptable to Modernize a Bit, Tweak a Little, and bring a Slightly New Artistic Touch, but not at the Expense of the Root Material.
  • paulamichelle9 November 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    *Plot Spoilers* but there is very little plot to be given away in this film! I had a hard time with CR and really hoped that QoS would be more Bond but I was to be sadly disappointed! Am I the only person left who likes a good plot, strong characters, gadgets, car chases and romance in a Bond film.....

    Daniel Craig is the most heartless Bond I have seen, He does not seem to a loyalty to anyone or his country, He's supposed to be everything thats cool about being a British agent but he was empty and charmless! The scene where Rene Mathis ends up in the boot of the car, gets shot and dies in Bonds arm, then has his money stolen was utterly immoral and unheroic.

    Many people have already written about how badly shot and directed QoS was. So I will get to main concern with QoS,

    What UPSET and OFFENDED me most was the implied rape scene near the end! This was disgusting and should not be in a Bond film or any film with a 12A rating!! The subplot of sexual assault shocked me. If it has been a 15 or even a 18 I might have expected to see something of this nature in the film. I have a 12 year old niece who would have had nightmares if she'd seen QoS. I think the 12A rating is a complete cop out !!!! QoS to me is a 15 .

    I hope is not just me that believes that films are becoming too desensitised, QoS is a plain example of this. I don't think I'll waste time and money seeing any future Bond films. Bring back Pierce Brosnan and his charm and warmth!

    To end on a positive, Dame Dudi Dench had the only good line in the film.
  • C22Man31 July 2015
    Bond Review.

    Title: Sounds very odd, but kind of makes sense given the story.

    Pre-Titles: Bond is involved in a high-speed chase as he travels to Siena with Mr. White in his boot and just manages to escape his pursuers. This opening could have been brilliant, but it is filmed horribly and edited to within an inch of its life. Every cut lasts half a second, making impossible to tell what's actually going on and sucking any enjoyment out of what should be an exciting opening.

    Theme Song: The first Bond duet by Jack White and Alicia Keys is one to forget. The melody and composition are actually pretty good, but the singing and lyrics are woeful. White is totally out of place and Keys honestly sounds like a cat being strangled, put them together and its ear torture.

    Plot: Bond tracks an organisation named Quantum and hunts them down in a state of revenge. He quickly discovers that its leader, developer Dominic Greene, plans to drain the Bolivian water supply. The plot had the potential to be very exciting, but it is told in such a confusing and mundane way that you lose interest very fast. Part of it feels like a Bond revenge mission and the other part feels like an old-school world domination plot, and these two styles don't mix whatsoever. The whole story itself feels rushed and the characters are given no convincing development.

    James Bond: Daniel Craig is the best thing here, yet he can't keep the film afloat. He nails the brooding edge of the character once more and adds even more physicality to the role, while being compelling with his expressions. However there's no balance, as he is given poor dialogue and doesn't get a chance to show his charming side, making him come off as a little too gloomy.

    Bond Girls: Both Bond girls are simply boring. Olga Kurylenko is convincing as the emotionally damaged Camille but she gets nothing interesting to do, looks constantly angry and has no chemistry with Craig. Gemma Arterton at least has some fun as agent Fields, but she gets too little screen time to make an impact and just feels like a throwaway character.

    Villains: Words don't do justice to how dull a villain Dominic Greene. Making a shadier businessman type of villain isn't a bad idea, but he has no personality and is not remotely convincing as a threat in any way. He doesn't say anything memorable, he doesn't do anything worth remembering, he looks like a depressed diplomat and most of the time he stands around looking bored. Joaquin Cosio at least looks the part as Greene's supplier General Medrano and he is intimidating, but the character is only glossed over and his role seems shoehorned in.

    Support: Judi Dench is as solid as ever in an expanded role as M, but she is in the field way too much. Giancarlo Giannini makes a welcome return as Mathis and is amusing, but doesn't get much to do. Jeffrey Wright's is completely wasted as Leiter, all he does is drink and look indifferent.

    Action: The action is intense, but there's way too much of it and it's filmed dreadfully. We get a chase along rooftops, boat chases, helicopter chases and countless shots of Bond walloping people with all of it done in shaky cam which means you can't really tell what is happening. As a result you simply don't care what is going on. The climax is a good set-up at a desert hotel, but Bond's fight with Greene is pathetic and it quickly becomes explosions galore.

    Score: David Arnold provides another decent score. He offers a fitting backdrop to the rough approach of the film in many scenes and his slower tracks are appropriately moody. However it is a bit lacklustre compared to his previous efforts.

    Production Values: Foster deserves most of the blame here for his terrible directing. As said the action sequences are a mess, while the dialogue heavy scenes are shot blandly and the 'important' scenes don't feel remotely important. The editing is the other issue as the film looks like it was edited by a maniac. It is all just lightning quick cuts, close-ups of people looking really irritated and the incredibly annoying shaky cam tormenting our senses. The pace is all off as well and it feels like one long action scene, it's like the film cannot slow down and that results in nothing being given room to breathe or develop. The writing is simply terrible. Was Bond's mission engaging? No. Was the villain's scheme interesting? No. Where the characters well written? No. As a result it is so hard to care about anything on screen. The locations are all good, but there is way too much globe hoping going on and if it wasn't for the awkward cards telling you then I wouldn't have a clue where Bond was.

    Conclusion: If Casino Royale was an Aston Martin, then Quantum of Solace is like taking that Aston Martin and driving it into a brick wall. Everything that Casino Royale had done so well has been completely done away with for no reason at all. The characters are all boring and only capable of being angry, the action is one massive mess, the plot is ridiculous given this more grounded portrayal and Bond has gone from feeling like a real person to a crazed wrecking machine. I love the dark and intense Bond, but there has to either be some levity or a really intriguing premise because otherwise it just becomes a chore to get through otherwise and that is exactly what Quantum of Solace is.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This has to be THE worst bond film of all time! Right from the opening scene, which is traditionally an action packed opening to blow you away, was awful. It's fast paced action was lost by a camera set too close to the action and flicking between camera shots so fast it was subliminal and far to fast for the human brain to register any action. After a few seconds I was totally lost, as was everyone else I spoke too.

    This style continued throughout any action scene in the film, making them unwatchable and irritating. The fight scene in the theatre was lost, again too much flicking between camera shots. Yes it's great that modern cameras can get you "into the action" but there is such a thing as moving in too close and loosing all perspective of action.

    I love Bond films, but a Bond film needs to have, Gadgets, Fast cars, witty comments, good music, ( Sorry Jack White ) Q and a baddie with another baddie above him and one above him! Daniel Craig is a good Bond, but give him the script to make him great.
  • Let me say from the start that Daniel Craig is one of the finest actors having played James Bond, maybe the best since Sean Connery. Judy Dench is also the best M. ever, and the idea of a female M. is just genial. Yet, the series are in trouble, and something needs to be done to save the series from the downturn that seems worst than the world economy.

    I will call the film QOS because the name requires a non-native English speaker to use a dictionary to understand it - and this is one of the many small problems that make a big disappointment. Another one is the unconvincing evil character. Another one is the lack of global threats in the intrigue - to justify the immense destruction and number of widows and orphans left on the track a James Bond movie must invent something more interesting than the water supply of Bolivia revealed as the big motivation way into the film. The action scenes themselves are well made, but too fast, too many, to confuse to help the viewers understand what is going on and care beyond the pure aesthetics of destruction.

    Bringing on the set fine actors and redesigning the character into a human being with real feelings as well as into a darker Bond fit to the world of today is a great idea. It is not enough though. Bringing good script writers is even more important.

    Oh, and yes, please bring back Q. and please have Bond say at least once 'My name is Bond. James Bond'. There is no such thing as a good Bond film without those.
  • fig000031 November 2008
    This is my first review in IMDb (my first port-of-call for movie opinions) and unfortunately it's simply a reaction to what has been, this morning, a disappointing experience.

    Unlike Casino Royale, which was as direct as a bullet from a gun, QoS spends a sizeable chunk of it's running time meandering aimlessly.

    Firstly though, the intro car chase is in the style of an agitated, edit-obsessed director which means the entire scene is viewed in short random bursts from a multitude of angles - Fine, if that's your bag.

    What follows is a series of action set pieces which are at turns exciting, manic and messy, but after which the film becomes flat and a little direction-less. That's not to say that there is little in the way of bullets and babes but the simple facts are that the set pieces are really not very exciting, and worse still the characters are pretty bland, in comparison to those in Casino Royale.

    You'll struggle to think of a main bond villain that is less interesting than Dominic Greene, and agent Fields is utterly pointless in every aspect other than brief eye-candy.

    As is mentioned in other reviews it is Judy Dench and Daniel Craig that keep this movie from leaving the tracks entirely but it doesn't bode well for future outings if this is to be the new template.

    In short Casino Royale rejuvenated the franchise but Quantum Of Solace has gone some way to spoiling it's success.

    The theme song isn't too good either, and just like the film it gets a tad messy at times. Get Chris Cornell back for the next one.
  • The_Wade13 January 2009
    When I first heard Marc Forster would direct the latest Bond film, I was delighted. It seemed as though the studio was continuing Bond's fresh new direction in that drama and character take precedent over ridiculous action. In Casino Royale, all of the action sequences are realistic and essential to the story. Quantum of solace, on the other hand, is mindless action with little story tacked on as an afterthought.

    But what hurts this movie the most is that the action sequences, while mostly pointless to the story, are poorly done. Too much editing and fast cutting, it is quite difficult to follow. It's as if the film makers were attempting to mimic a Bourne film. If this is where the studio wants to take Bond, they should hire Paul Greengrass, for he knows how to throw a camera around like nobody's business and still create cohesive action sequences.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    *Contains Spoilers*

    The plot wasn't a confusing one but I really didn't care about it that and lost so much interest in Quantum of Solace that at times I wasn't too sure what was going on. Despite being widely acclaimed, the same happened for me with Casino Royale. It got to the point where in some cases I did know who characters were, and when I did, I neither liked or disliked them.

    I tried to like Daniel Craig, I really tried, but he is an awful James Bond. Critically he has been well received as Bond but every car chase, ever fight, ever action scene I found myself wanting Craig to end up being the one thrown off a building.

    He doesn't have any the charm or charisma that James Bond should have and everything about him is far too serious; the scene in the hotel with Fields pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with Craig's Bond. Fields turns up to arrest Bond if he goes rogue but ends up in bed with him, this is nothing out of the ordinary except it just happens; there is no charm from Bond, no cringe worthy lines, no character interaction. It just happens.

    Bond going rogue is nothing new but throughout the entire film he actually felt like the bad guy and I actually ended up liking Greene far more. James Bond shooting and killing two perfectly innocent Bolivian policemen is not the James Bond we have come to love over the years, rogue or not, it's not an excuse. James Bond is actually the most unlikeable characters in this film.

    Although I think there was meant to be, there is no Bond girl in Quantum of Solace. Olga Kurylenko played the part well but like everybody else in this film, it wouldn't have made any difference if she wasn't in it.

    Gone are the totally over the top action scenes which have been replaced with far fetched chases and gun fights that are trying too hard to come across as realistic. Gone is any humour, gone is everything that I loved about James Bond.

    I think this is the core problem with Craig and the past two Bond films, and perhaps it's not Craig's fault, but Bond is trying to become realistic. It fails on every level.

    There are so many things wrong with Quantum of Solace, most not Craig's fault but it isn't helped by my dislike for him as James Bond.

    I'll watch pretty much any film through to the end if I've started watching it, and Quantum of Solace was no different but for a good part of it I just wanted it to end. From the awful song at the introduction to the ending credits I don't think I enjoyed it at any point and I wanted the good part of a couple of hours back.
  • dunmore_ego6 December 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    Stunt, stunt, stunt, crash. Stunt, stunt, stunt, crash. Explosion.

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE, directed by Marc Foster like a speed freak on crank and edited by Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson like a chicken fight in a monkey house, makes THE BOURNE IDENTITY look like MY DINNER WITH ANDRE.

    As I watched the opening car chase grind metal, and the subsequent foot chase beat streets through an Italian town during a horse race, one question kept surfacing: Did I accidentally walk into TRANSPORTER 3?

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE exists only for its next popcorn chase sequence only to show off its next stunt, with editing that will maim your optic nerves. Your eyes will start hurting long before you realize there's nothing on screen worth watching.

    Daniel Craig, still chiseled like a Grecian statue, still super-cool and super-cruel, is listed as playing Ian Fleming's super-spy character, James Bond.

    But is it still Bond? Having recently watched two of Pierce Brosnan's outings (GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY), I see that Brosnan (a perfect Bond, I might add) never colored so far outside the lines of the character that he became not just unrecognizable, but indistinguishable from the morass of other taut-buttocked man-toys glutting the action hero landscape. That's the tragedy here - Craig could be Jason Statham or Clive Owen or Jet Li; the Bond franchise might have been resurrected/reimagined in CASINO ROYALE, but there is not enough "essence of Bond" left by venturing so far outside the box in QUANTUM.

    There is still the suaveness, sure, but the infamous Bond gadgets? Not a trace, except maybe the soaring height of computer technology displayed by the whole MI6 organization. Aston Martin? Only a banged up version in the opening car chase. Flamboyant villain? Well, he's indeterminately Euro with designs on absolute power. Ironic banter? Nope. Quips? Nope. Sex with leading lady? Nope - instead, a glorified extra. Even the catchphrase, "Bond. James Bond" is absent. And the laughable Bond death-traps where - like the 1960s Batman - he is left to die in some contraption with a countdown that allows him just enough time to find an improbable escape with no one watching? Bond actually turns the table on this one, leaving the villain in the desert with only a can of motor oil to sustain him.

    Written by the talented Paul Haggis, the Evil Plot in this Bond film is congruent with today's morally muddy politics, where a shady "green" entrepreneur, Gordon Greene (Mathieu Amalric), deals hand-in-glove with the CIA and the British government, who both admit, "if we didn't do business with villains we wouldn't be doing business at all." Of course, Greene's ultimate aim is power over others - in this case, monopolizing the water supply in Bolivia, using "environmentalism" as a cover.

    For those not paying attention, there are the eye-straining fight scenes and chase scenes to keep you amused: car chase, boat chase, plane chase, moped chase, foot chase across rooftops (where've I seen that before? Oh yeah - the last Bond film!), wholesale destruction following in the wake of Bond and his pursuers.

    Meanwhile, that wrinkled old man in charge of MI6, Judi Dench, goes swishing about doubting Bond's trust because he is mooning over a chick who got murdered in the last film. So Bond goes rogue long enough to plonk a newbie bimbo by the name of Fields, then finds her dead like the chick in GOLDFINGER, covered in oil instead of gold. (Black gold?, heh heh--Waitaminute! Even if you were dipped in crude oil like a shrimp cocktail, wouldn't it just slide off? How does it cake her body like black syrup?)

    And the leading lady - in these films, termed Bond Girl - Olga Kurylenko, doesn't even schtupp Bond! Isn't that the POINT of being a Bond Girl?! Detached to the point of boring, Kurylenko's ice queen character is ironic, playing some kind of double-agent with a burn scar on her back that I couldn't stop looking at, tooling about a searing desertscape, trapped in a hotel fire - yet generating not one iota of heat. Let's face it: Bond's universe is no place for a woman too independent. Our primal instincts felt the old magic when dippy Fields bantered with Bond, but that misogynistic fun was not to last. Excuse the pun, but - 18 million cracks, my arse!

    Why does everyone moan about the title? Does anyone know what Quantum means outside of physicists and Scott Bakula fans? (From IMDb:) According to Henry Chancellor in his book James Bond - The Man and His World, "Quantum of Solace" relates to the necessary iota of emotion that is needed between lovers.

    Now tenuously link this with Bond seeking revenge for his last bébé and the villainous organization named Quantum. Thank the junkets we don't have to view the film for this info, which takes us from Haiti, to Italy, Bolivia, Austria, London, Russia, and leaves us north of Eye-Strain.

    QUANTUM opens with the good ole sexploitation gimmick of sand dunes as naked women, Alicia Keys and John White singing, Another Way to Die; closes with the gun barrel motif and classic Bond theme music.

    Just like the last film, Bond's healing abilities are like Wolverine: every little face cut - healed by the next scene. In CASINO ROYALE, he plonked Vesper Lynn mere days after his mandacious torture - can the franchise heal itself as quickly as Wolverine Bond's ballsac?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I am sorry to say that I felt this film missed the mark. I really enjoyed Casino Royale, though I did not think it was perfect, but after watching Quantum of Solace I appreciate it far more. It's not the lack of one lines, innuendo or the lack of appreciation of the fine things Bond was known for, no the problem with this film was its pacing and at times dreadful editing choices.

    I was surprised that a film that boasts a 'character' director could produce a film with such lack of character. Generally you don't get a feel of anyone in this movie, bar the character of Camille, everyone else seems spare and underused and you find you just don't care. Which is exactly how you feel about the action after the first 30 minutes, to the point where it becomes painful for all the wrong reasons. The action is not even as gritty as Casino Royale, instead it feels like Bourne for babies, loads of action with no guts. At least with the action in Casino Royale you felt that the film makers were trying to make a comment on the brutality of Bonds world, a idea from Fleming that Bond is as bad as those he hunts. Sadly this film does not have that, though I really wanted it to.

    I certainly did not think I would say this but bring back Martin Campbell for the next one, please. Sorry Mark you missed the mark on this one.

    Yesshhh indeed
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have just come from watching the latest Bond film, and I am very disappointed. A production team sat around and decided that as the Bourne films were good at a scene switch every 30 frames a scene switch every 15 frames would be twice as good. I was bored. I really can't describe how poor this film is. Static cameras, short cut and long cuts on trolleys. Then poor (long) exposure times and slow film to generate sense of action, just revealed amateurish cinematography. If you really need to see this wait for the DVD, I suspect it won't be that long. Apparently I have to elaborate on how poor this film is, so that I can post here. Well it is bad, rubbish and a disgrace. There is little or no direction, the cameramen directed the film directed by the producers. Craig and Dench will happily take their fee. No idea or interest in the other characters.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Actually, I like Daniel Craig as Bond, and I think Olga Kurylenko is hot, and I'm perfectly happy to do without all the gadgets. However, if you're going to make a Bond movie to look as if it were a serious spy movie, it has to make at least a modicum of sense, and scene for scene, this was the most brainless Bond ever (and I'm including some very silly Roger Moore vehicles). Why is Bond going to such lengths to save a girl he just met in a car from a trap she just walked open-eyed into? How does he know it's a trap? And why does he care? Why, having figured out the method by which the leaders of an ultra secret organization communicate with one another, does he immediately tell them that he knows? Most un-spy like, if you ask me. Why is it so important the Giancarlo Gianini character return with Bond to Bolivia? What does he have to contribute? Plane fare? Why does M crack down on Bond, then thirty seconds later say she trusts him? What has changed in that half minute? Why does Bond choose to go after the villain when he does? Is it really necessary to make his move when the guy is in a heavily guarded facility? Couldn't he just wait until he comes out? The whole thing was just absurd. And when played straight as a shoot-em-up action film with no crazy comedy or gimmick-based stunts, the absurdity just becomes more visible.
  • dog_belch8 November 2008
    Dear God... speaking as a Bond fan, .. what the hell is this? I wanted to leave the cinema... that can't be right, surely? The editing... the editing,. do you want to make me ill? I wanted to enjoy another episode in the Bond franchise, I got some f*ck-paced nightmare vision of movie hell..., the hell were they thinking.

    I am a huge Bond fan, I recognise the faults but, at the same time, that's why I, and many others, like Bond.

    The f*ck is this? Bullsh*t.


    I liked Casino Royale What is this? Some p?sstake?
  • This film could have been so good, but Marc Forster's clichéd and ham-fisted direction completely ruined it for me. To be fair, his handling of the quieter moments between the action was adequate, but he clearly has no grasp of how direct action sequences, which are clearly central to any good Bond. I'm afraid the 'shake the camera and cut at least once a second' school of action direction doesn't really cut it.

    It's tragic really, as the setup and the stunts for the sequences looked pretty promising, but you had to look pretty hard to tell once Mr. Forster's hopeless direction kicked in. Such a waste.

    I think I'll hold out for the special edition DVD - you know - the non-directors cut!
  • MLDinTN12 April 2010
    I thought this movie was terrible. First of all, there is no plot. Something about revenge but if you didn't watch Casino Royal right before, then it makes no sense. It's been over a year since I've seen Casino Royal, so I didn't remember much that carries on into this film. So Bond is after revenge for his girl's death from Royal and something about going to Bolivia and chasing a guy that is trying to buy much of Bolivia's water supply in order to get rich. He teams up with this chick, Camille, whom is after a general that killed her father. But she's not like a typical Bond chick because Bond doesn't get romantic with her.

    The way the action scenes were filmed was terrible. The camera was so shaky and just quick flashes; you couldn't even tell what was happening. And I don't like how this Bond is just out to kill people. Pierce Bronson's Bond was never like that. It makes him cold blooded and you don't want to root for him.

    FINAL VERDICT: I could barely make it through this movie, it was so boring because there is no story to follow. I don't recommend it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The movie starts with an 'action' sequence where Bond is being chased through the mountains in some fancy car... or maybe he's chasing someone through the mountains... or maybe he's driving down to Brighton for an afternoon at the beach and some other people are chasing each other through the mountains... or... who knows? They obviously spent a ton of cash on this sequence but then they cut it together in three-frame chunks so the audience have no idea what the heck is going on.

    After this there's a brief discussion which seems to assume that the viewer just watched Casino Royale and can therefore remember exactly what happened in that movie (perhaps the fact that I can barely remember anything about it whereas I remember at least the rough plots of pretty much every other Bond movie I've seen should have been warning enough to me).

    Then Bond chases someone around town... or maybe someone chases him... or maybe Bond goes for a nice cup of tea as he watches a horse race while two other guys chase each other around town; again it's impossible to tell because of the appalling editing.

    Then he flies to... well, I don't know -- or really care -- because at this point we turned off the DVD.

    Never once in my life have I failed to watch a Bond movie to the end, until now... and, let's face it, there have been plenty of stinkers. But this is just garbage, and if it's the future of the Bond franchise, it's rushing towards a well-deserved death; the concept of a more realistic Bond wasn't a bad one, but not when you give $100,000,000 to a couple of film school students (OK, maybe the editor and director do have some track record -- I don't even care enough to look them up on IMDb -- but it certainly looks like the kind of movie that bad film school students dream about making).

    Seriously, avoid this movie at all costs; it's the worst 'action movie' I've seen in years.
  • Mustang9226 September 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    How in God's name could they screw this Bond movie up so badly? How???

    The director, Marc Forster, has done some good movies before. Was this one just "out of his league" due to all the heavy action sequences? The action sequences all SUCK, every one of them. Not only are they poorly cut together, there's even one that is cut together with an opera on a theatre stage. Not a bad idea, necessarily, but it doesn't work here. Just awful. Even the climax of the movie, the last action sequence, is utterly horrible... a massive building/structure in the middle of a desert, that inexplicably is able to have successive explosions to enhance the finale. Pulllleeease.

    The writers, one being Paul Haggis, has written some excellent stuff. So how could this script be so poor? A storyline that not only is convoluted, but lacks story logic. Oh, sure, a lot of studio movies lack story logic or have horrible plot lines, but c'mon, this is inexcusable for a Bond film.

    I like Craig as Bond (thus this movie gets 2 stars instead of the lowest rating), but he does play it as a serious (and some here say brooding) Bond. There are no humorous moments and no "charmingly rogue-ish" side to this Bond. It is a film devoid of any humor, and that's a shame.

    Perhaps that's because he's after the people responsible for the death of someone close to him (or that he loved). But this is all backstory, we don't see him being with whoever he supposedly cared about before she was killed. And that's indicative of the whole movie: None of the characters have ANY character development, so we don't care about any of them. They can live or die (and most die), but who cares? The writers really failed here with this script.

    The producers of this movie? They should all be forbidden from future outings of Bond films, and Ms. Broccoli should license this franchise to producers who know how to make a good movie with a compelling story. Quit phoning this in, Ms. Broccoli. You're doing a serious disservice to this franchise with "Quantum."
An error has occured. Please try again.