1

this sounds good

Darrin on Feb 29, 2008

2

honestly, while i love the sean connery days, casino royale blew the other bond movies out of the water, and i suspect this will do the same

Josh on Feb 29, 2008

3

If i am not mistaken Martin Campbell has nothing to do with this flick.

Jojo on Feb 29, 2008

4

Jojo, what I meant was… Campbell made Casino Royale and Goldeneye. With Goldeneye, he saved the franchise and gave us the best Brosnan movie. I'm wondering if he did that again with Casino Royale… As in, did he make the best of the Craig era Bond movies and did he save the franchise which will only go downhill from here…

That's what I mean by that statement at the end.

Alex Billington on Feb 29, 2008

5

Craig era Bond blows away all bonds except for Sean Connery. The action was way more intense and much more simplistic and relied on the storyline instead of gadgets and gimmicks. Craig plays the part and is a much darker bond that really brought me back to the franchise…

Zippy on Feb 29, 2008

6

I think the strength of Casino Royale, as Zippy pointed out, was the reliance on character development in Bond himself and the much more subtle acting of Craig and the whole cast. It mimics, really, the success of the Christian Bale batman flick(s)(hopefully) in that his batman relied more on his own skill rather than bat-a-rangs and other goofy junk and the characters were all more down-to-earth. The reason the recent Brosnan Bond films were so bad were the caricatured characters and the over-reliance on JUST the right gizmo for the occasion (something that always annoyed me about the Bond flicks). The script sounds decent, but it makes me nervous that they have so much stuff jammed in there. I hope they can make time in all that world hopping for some character moments and slower sequences.

I love the new Craig Bond, and I really want this one to be as good as - or better than - the previous one. The choice of Director is a bit odd (it's Marc Forster, btw… not Campbell… Might wanna check that last sentence in the write-up :), but Amalric is a gifted actor as well as Craig and Dench, so it's a toss up. It's just odd seeing Forster attached to this since he's not really done much int eh way of action… maybe a good indication of the tone of the film, tho?

Squiggly_P on Feb 29, 2008

7

You know, I have Casino Royale on DVD downstairs, but I haven't watched it yet. I got a couple movies I haven't watched yet actually, looks like I got a plan for today.

Kail on Mar 2, 2008

8

Sounds like an even grittier, action-packed adventure that will only build upon the groundwork that "Casino Royale" laid out. Daniel Craig is a great Bond, although I had my preconceptions at first. I have high hopes that this follow up will be just as good or even better than it's predecessor. The fact that this incarnation of James Bond delves into a character driven piece is what many of us have been longing for, with minimal gadget use, that made "Casino Royale" so interesting to watch. It is this human element that makes the story realistic and believable.
"Casino" ranked up there with the best of the Connery and Moore era and blew away "Goldeneye". Not to mention that Brosnan's subsequent Bond movies were consistently slipping into ludicrous, far-fetched territory where the series quickly started to parody itself. Thank goodness for the new blood behind this re-boot. "Quantum of Solace" seems like a serious and cerebral title that bodes well for the Bond series–one of the few new series that seems to become smarter, rather than dumbing down!
Let's hope this movie turns out out to be what it is quickly shaping up to be!

Spider on Mar 2, 2008

9

Alex -

I think he knew that, however, you had typed Martin Campbell as the director of Stranger Than Fiction. I'm sure you meant to say Marc Forster, the director of both films.

Adam on Mar 2, 2008

10

This isn't new at all, and MTV are about a month behind the rest of the world

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_22_synopsis1.php3?t=qos&s=qos

Bob on Mar 2, 2008

11

Casino Royale was a great film. I believe its success was not solely due to Daniel Craig. Martin Campbell is a very GOOD action director. The Editing of the film was Marvelous. Short, sharp & to the point. Very Crisp.The supporting actors and characters, help Craig carry Bond effortlessly on screen. He didn't reinvent Bond. Like I said … there were many factors that help Royale be a success. Influence from other spy movies like 'XXX', 24 & Bourne movies. More gritty and down to earth. To me, Craig is just good. But all these elements help Royale be the BOMB.

One thing that kept bothering me about Craig was his looks. His overall physique. He definitely look like a commando or an Assassin. In a crowded room or at any event, he sticks out like a sore thumb. The villains and bad guys would pin point him immediately as the threat. Unlike the other Bonds, they were more comely, suave and had a certain air about them, that did not betray their identity : 'Licence to Kill'.

My favorite Bonds will always be Connery & Brosnan. Anyways, the producers did mentioned that the Bond franchise has rebooted to his beginning days. That's why he lacks the Charisma. Quantum of Solace will be another bigger bomb or just another movie for X'Mas '09.

Shawn Gregory on Mar 4, 2008

12

Has anyone actually read the books. Bond must have "menace" Connery had it & so does Craig. None of the rest had "it". Locations, girls & the threat of sudden death, gotta love it. craig needs to find his Red Grant.

Berlun on May 15, 2008

13

where's the trailer??? it was just released today!?!?!?!!

Lags on Jun 30, 2008

14

As an avid fan of all the previous bond films and the story, I must say Dan Craig has changed, through his grossly inadequate portrayal of the character, who James Bond really is. He is far worse than Tim Dalton, who I thought was pretty bad at the time. Did Craig ever watch the 20 Bond films that proceeded him? Never mind that it's the "first mission as a 007", his dark personality and serious nature are clearly not James Bond and personally, I had a hard time watching the movie.

Bond is an action guy, but also has a womanizing personality and way of smerking as he cracks a joke to subtly "offend" the enemies at social gatherings. The casino scene of "Royale" dragged for so long I nearly fell asleep, and not once did Craig crack a smile, make a joke, or say "I'd like to buy the lady a drink". I could not stand watching that movie and this next movie seems no better. I wish the writers and the actors would get their acts together, and bring back some of the hilarious and somewhat "goofy" mannerisms that make Bond films what they are. I'd like to hear Mr. Craig just once say "I was just out walking my rat and seemed to have lost my way" as he pops out of a sewer line! Even in Dr. No when Bond sings "Underneath the mango tree" to serenade Honey Ryder…I cannot picture Craig doing the same thing. BTW, has Bond ever had short blonde hair, and did they have cell phones in the 1950s during his first missions?

Megaman on Jul 8, 2008

15

I have read the books and Craig fits the darker description of Bond in the Books except for being blonde lol. He is by far the best bond yet.

Alex on Nov 1, 2008

16

I saw Quantum of Solace this evening and thought the film was lacking, lacking a plot that is. The film jumped from chase scene to chase scence, but lost me right from the beginning. It's worth seeing for the intense action, but don't go with any expectatin of intelligent dialogue or redeeming moral conclusion.

Stacy on Nov 21, 2008

17

The movie was not the best of the Bonds. Definitely. It picked up right where Casino Royale left off and if you, like me saw Casino Royale In 2006 last, when you see this movie there are a lot of things that don't make sense, like Vesper, heck, I forgot if Vesper was a man or a woman. Also, the movie lacked a plot, Quantum, apparently the organization that the antagonist, Dominic Greene, works for, is mentioned once throughout the entire movie. Quantum of Solace is not even mentioned, the title has no relevancy to the movie itself. I am hoping the next movie will tie up all of the loose ends. It seems that the Bond films are now trying to imitate the Bourne series, the few fighting scenes consisting of nothing but punching and using their surroundings. Normally in Bond movies their are lots of high-tech gadgets, this one, nada, nothing, zippo, zero high-tech gadgets, other than a touch screen computer and a smartfone, nothing new there, the movie consisted of everyday things. The Bond movies have changed a lot. In the 1960s they were somewhat comical and had a good plot that actually made sense. This movie is a disgrace to the classic James Bonds. I had the choice to go to see the movie Twilight or Quantum of Solace. Now, it is in doubt which would have been better, and Twilight is probably a pretty sappy movie. The movie was terrible.

Andy on Nov 28, 2008

18

It should be renamed Quantum of Misery. What a total crock. No plot. No sense. No nothing except endless chases and mindless violence. Plus of course the obligatory look at Daniel's bare chest. Ho hum, pig's bum. At first I couldn't understand a word of their gabble, so kept turning up the volume until I could snatch a thread of what they were on about. Then I wished I hadn't. The noise stupified me, and words left me temporarily brain-dead. If Ian Fleming were alive he'd take out his golden gun and use Quantum for target practice. Aarrgghh.

Geoffrey Somers on Dec 6, 2008

19

I like Quantam better than Casino Royale. Personally I'm not crazy about Daniel Craig. I think that Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan are the best Bonds. However, in this particular Bond movie, Craig seems well suited for the role.

Justin on Jan 18, 2009

20

too bad Timothy Dalton didn't get more chances to be Bond…go watch The Living Daylights…that was a great movie and nice acting the part….

Mike in Philly on Sep 18, 2009