HOME TRAILERS RELEASE DATES PODCAST REVIEWS POSTERS INTERVIEWS MOVIE NEWS ABOUT US APPS FSnetwork

SOUND OFF

Bond Week: Quantum of Solace - What Did You Think?

by Alex Billington
November 14, 2008

Our Bond Week coverage ends with this - one final discussion about the 22nd James Bond film, Quantum of Solace. We want to know what you thought! Did it live up to all of your expectations? How did it compare to Casino Royale and did it provide a suitable finish to the story that started in that movie? Has Daniel Craig started to improve and turn into the old fashioned James Bond we all know and love or become something else entirely? Was it as action packed and entertaining as you were hoping or just one big mess? Sound off below, leave your thoughts, and let us know what you thought of Quantum of Solace!

To fuel the fire, I really loved Quantum of Solace quite a damn bit, as I mentioned in my review previously. I really think Marc Forster was an outstanding choice for director and I don't think this would've been half as good of a follow up without him. The opening car chase scene was one of the most thrilling and entertaining opening scenes out of any Bond movie. In fact, I loved it so much that I might say it actually gives X-Men 2's opening scene a run for its money - in my mind. The rest of it was just as enjoyable, with Olga Kurylenko kicking some ass and some great action. Already one of my favorite Bond movies!

What did you think of Quantum of Solace? Best Bond movie yet or one of the worst?

Pin It

Related categories: Bond Week, Discussion, Hype, Sound Off

John

I enjoyed the movie. The action was intense and satisfying. However, I feel that there was a lack of storyline in certain segments of the movie and was compensated by action scenes that somewhat reminded me of shoot'em up. I will definately be seeing it again, though. Overall 8/10
http://screenrant.com ScreenRant.com

I don't get this whole "lack of story" argument. Story was fine - it was the action sequences that were HORRIBLE. I could NOT tell WHAT the hell was going on. I actually sat there and mentally counted out "one one thousand, two one thousand" and the edits were such that there was a cut TWO TIMES PER SECOND. Combine that with ridiculously tight closeups and I was frustrated as hell. I was actually relieved when they went back to "regular" scenes. Bring back director Martin Campbell!!! Vic
Shige

God damn awful. As many things with todays makes and remakes they try to put in as much action and "cool" stunt and CGI scenes that just look unreal and misplaced. This particular movie suffers of a horrible action direction. Whoever thought of the main entertaiment source here thought of action as a source of enjoyment. Well, it is just not that good. Guy after guy gets whacked and there is absolutely no sence or feeling of either excitement or care. Its just a guy killing a buch of other guys and using guns and cars to promote real life products. A Rambo 5 light. Besides, russian chicks have never ever made good actresses (this is coming from a guy with a russian ancestry) and the one they chose here is terrible as actress.
tyler wilson

I somewhat agree with Vic. #2 the story line was great and the non action shit was amazing... so was the action, the only scene I had a big problem with was the beginning car scene, I could not really see what was going on and the close ups were a bit much, but as for the rest of the movie it was phenomenal, if it werent for nostalgia I would say this was my favorite Bond movie, and I love Bond!! it kicked ass, and as for the no care kill everyone thing, that was the point man!!! get a clue. Bond is a hard ass, and can destroy.
spanx

here-here #2 there was a lack of story line, however i love the way how "Hush-hush" this org. Quantum is. im really looking forward to the next one! Hopefully more info will be revealed about Quantum. But, the action scenes were poor, mainly because it had the annoying shaky camera effect. as a die hard Bond fan i give it a 9/10 do you think in the near future we will see SPECTRE again?
Taylor

The Star Trek trailer was really good
a-dog

I liked it a lot. I never saw Casino Royale, although i hear great things, and the only other bond i had to compare this one to was Pierce Brosnin's. It was a lot better than i expected. I do agree about the action scenes, i had no idea what was goin on, but besides that, i really enjoyed i Im definately going to check out Casino Royale.
http://halfanese.blogspot.com/ Byonic

I thought it was great! Beautifully choreographed action scenes. Loved it!!!
Ken Masters

Awesome movie......a bit lacking on the story side overshadowed by action. And WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY TOOOOOOOO SHORT!! Didnt feel like th eepic bond movie that was Casino Royale. My take 7.0/10 Needed more story and lentgh.
Jeremy

#5 hit it dead on. The first 20 minute action scenes were VERY shakey and all I could think about was Cloverfield. Not comparing the movie to it one bit but I enjoyed it overall. Gonna have a review up soon. Judy Dench is pure gold.
Jeremy

Forgot to mention... Trailers premierd were 7 Pounds 2012 The day the Earth stood Still and.... drurolll please............... Star Trek! The trailer was indeed very awesome and we are itching to find it in HD!
Alfredo

can't watch the movie yet... But I really wanna watch the Star Trek trailer. Like. NOW! Any links to someone's crappy camcorder-recorded version? I'd be satisfied with that.
one

Here's the thing. The action would have been great....if anyone could tell what was going on! The editing tried really hard to be bourne, but fell far short. The action scenes were too short and choppy...not long enough to live up to a real "action sequence." Second the story line was weak. The trailer made it seem like there was much more depth than there really was, which is sad. Daniel Craig as great as Bond, one of my favorite. Judi Dench is always fantastic. I liked the movie, it was fun and it held up to the bar of a typical Bond movie I just wish there was more to it. as a side note....the trailer for Seven Pounds is terrible. It tells absolutely nothing about a movie that looks like it will try really hard to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. I like Will Smith, I have met him. He is nice and down to earth...but wtf mate?
ck

i like how everyone says it has a lack of story. well thats ovbiously because noone payed much attention, they were too busy trying to get their senses back from the action. the reason why much wasnt introduced is because they dont want to tell you what everything is yet, they want you to see the next one so even if you liked it or not your going to go see what happens next. i thought it was awesome. it had me on the edge of my seat the whole time, and no sequence felt out of place, they told you that from start to finish the movie was going to be non stop action, and did they disappoint? no. so shut up everyone who likes to complain. awesome movie, will be seeing it again to try and catch any missed tid-bits. (Watchmen trailer was AMAZING)(star trek looks like its going to suck.no interest at all)
brandon

This movie was awesometastic. Good story, good action, good acting. Not the best movie ever, but certainly a very very good one. You're welcome.
-peter-

I was dissapointed. it wasn't bad, but not on par with Casino Royale.
dave

i fucking loved it i thought it was way better than casino royale
Brian

Awesome. Intense. Didn't care a whole lot for the song at the beginning, but overall great! Love these films. Best Bond EVER! Star Trek was a delight as well.
Clamson

It was fuckin good. Brian, I totally agree with you. I REALLY hated the song. Very annoying. But everything else was bomb shit.
David

What the Hell Edmonton Alberta Did not play the Star Trek Trailer.... Other then That I did enjoy the movie and I am not a Bond Fan..
Bo

I Loved everything about it, it was amazing. I hate hearing the not as good as Casino Royale comment though. I dont think bond movies should be compared to the last, if this was true, then any movie after Goldfinger would be so-so because none of them will top what that movie did. Also, the plot was there, while it was a little thin. there was still a great story to be enjoyed, but they are in talks of a third film, in this case, Quantum would make total sense, so for those of you who didn't appreciate it now, will definitely enjoy it down the road and learn to appreciate it, but yeah, Quantum is one of my new favorites!
Ali

People like #1 and #2 seriously piss me off when it comes to movie watching, that's why I don't ask anyone about how good a certain movie was that they've seen, if I like the trailer and think it's worth watchin, then I just go and see it for myself.
kingjimbo

The basic problem with Quantum of Solace is that there was so little time spent on exposition. The entire movie was one long action sequence. If Forster had cut out three or four of the action scenes and spent that time on making the plot close to comprehensible, it would've been a significantly better movie. That said, it was still an incredible film. The depth and emotion demonstrated by Daniel Craig is yet to be matched by another actor to take the role of Bond. The scene where Bond is drunk off Vespers at the plane's bar is one of the most revealing in the history of the franchise. It makes Bond's womanizing hook up (sorry, no better word for it) with Ms. Fields understandable, as he is torn apart by his lost love, yet is still a misogynistic, arrogant man, and the only way he is able to deal with the loss of Vesper is to have sex with another girl. (Spoiler Alert!) The scene where Mathis dies in Bond's arms is incredibly touching, as it shows Bond is not the emotionless machine he pretends to be. His frequent references to his quest being about avenging M also show this. Despite what he may present, he truly cares for M, as she is as close to a mother as he has ever known. When it comes down to it, this film was not a satisfying conclusion to Casino Royale, but rather an excellent set up to the third chapter in an amazing trilogy. It answers no questions left open at the end of the first film of the reboot. While the plot may be jumbled and poorly exposed, the underlying story is undeniably intriguing, and Quantum of Solace does an excellent job of hitting the tip of the iceberg. The real pressure now lies on the next Bond film, as its quality will determine how QoS is remembered. If it knocks it out of the park and delivers an unbelievable finale, then QoS will be considered The Two Towers of the Daniel Craig trilogy, an action packed second chapter in a phenomenal trilogy. If the third film sucks, the Quantum of Solace will be the Matrix Reloaded, the action packed second chapter in a trilogy that started out promising and declined with each iteration.
Jim

Movie was good. Am I one of the few that miss my Traditional Bond flick? I mean honestly its like they completely changed the movie. Daniel Craig is an amazing actor but his portrayal of bond just doesn't do it for me. I blame the writers possibly? I mean Bond has never really been a rough around the edges character. He been a suave and smooth type and they totally went away from that. I dont think Pierce Brosnan may have been a weaker actor but he played a better bond. Also i miss my Q Gadgets. I mean honestly not even a simple gadget or anything? I mean for an action movie not bad. For a bond flick its some what of a let down. Enjoyed the movie for what it was worth but I'm more excited to see Daniel Craig in his next non bond role in Defiance.
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/vads Vitor

I wrote my review on my blog (http://blogger.xs4all.nl/vads) 10 days ago, which I copied here: Last night I attended the Dutch premiere of Quantum of Solace, the second Bond-film with Daniel Craig. Casino Royale was a superb movie, innovating in its' Bond- and action-genre. But somehow I was having low expectations for Quantum of Solace, which indeed turned out to be true. The movie is a disappointment. I was constantly thinking about giving it a 7, but the more I think of it, the more it irritates me. The action scenes are very chaotic. Remember last year's Transformers; the scenes in which you saw (and heard) a lot of metal moving and suddenly you had a shot of a gigantic robot standing? Well, imagine very chaotic fight scenes with lots of moving suits, body limbs, shouts, etc. and suddenly you see three bodies lying on the floor. This is QoS. Chase scenes which each half second move into a different point of view. It's a mess and doesn't give the viewer a moment of rest. Casino gave us some very innovating and memorable scenes (the chase in the harbor, etc.) but this years Bond is totally a bad copy of the Bourne-series. Sometimes I had the feeling I was watching Matt Damon and even good old Arnold as the Terminator. Daniel is very bland in this Bond. Still, there is one scene which was exciting for me. The end of the rooftop chase. The camera work in that scene is excellent! But overall you'll continuously be wondering to yourself:"why this, why that, why so?". It is a big pack of coincidences. If you really want/ have to go, be sure to check out Casino Royale once again before going, as it will help you have all the names, plot, etc. fresh in your mind. Actually, the only reason to go see this movie in the cinema is because, unfortunately, currently there are no other recommendable movies to be seen. Mediocre. My rating: 6 out of 10
The Awsome Dude With Sunglasses

I loved the movie! Daniel Craig is the second best Bond and Marc Forster is a really good director. Nice cinematography, hot chicks and cool cars! Not better than the early Sean Connery ones or Casino Royale but non the less, one of the best bond movies in my opinion. 9/10.
jackson stone

i feel like i must have watched a completely different movie then a lot of you. the only time i could tell what was going on was in the rope scene where they met in midair, i couldn't tell who was who, but it lasted all of 3 punches and about 4 seconds. aside from that, i found nothing wrong with the car chase, or any of the other action scenes. maybe you sat up too close? i've seen it 3 times now. once in the back row and twice about 8 rows from the back. i think it was a great movie. kept me entertained, and going back.
alex

I loved the movie. Its your opinion! The only prob. was that there should have a little more time with the girls and more info on quantum
Nathan

Eh. It all felt really disjointed. Walk to car, get in fight. Walk to plane, get in fight. Walk to boat, get in fight. Walk to submarine, get in fight. Nothing really flowed well. The action sequences themselves were a bit hard to follow. None of my friends could figure out how the hook took out the last boat. It wasn't bad, but Casino Royal was so good I was pumped to see the next one opening night. With this, I'll probably catch the next bond film opening weekend, maybe it's second week.
geoff

The editing completely destroyed the film for me. I mean goddammit the car chase scene was such complete shit it destroyed my expectations for the rest of the film. There was several times were I literally could not tell who was punching/hitting/driving a car into whom. Quickcutting should die a slow and fiery death. My favorite scene was the airplane sequence, being it's the only clearly shot and exciting sequence in the entire damn film. I must admit I also enjoyed the Goldfinger reference. Oh and bond went from an interesting character to a blank facing killing machine with a drinking problem, WTF?!
Al

Star Trek? The Day The Earth Stood Still? didnt get these trailers. my theater had Watchmen, 7 Pounds, and 2012 AD. as with Bond plot was iffy as was the opera scene with the close ups and cuts. i did enjoy most of the action though. 7.5/10
emil Lamprecht

Can't say I was thrilled. I honestly think Casino Royale is one of the most intelligently done action films that I've seen, and though it wasn't a great Bond it was a beautiful transition to a new way of portraying the character in the modern day. Quantum just did not continue that tradition, it turned Bond into a killing machine, lacked a dynamic story line and though I truly appreciate what they were trying to do with the way they shot and edited it... they didn't quite do it. Disappointing to be sure. I had fun watching it, but was glad I saw the free pre-screening as opposed to paying.
TBFL

Overall it was a thumbs up, but not nearly as satisfying as Casino Royale. It did not seem as....gritty?...as the first Craig Bond...
Tim C

I loved it! My only complaint was that it was too short. I was not ready for it to end when it did. I can't wait for the next one. And this is a trilogy that they are doing correct? That's how I see it going down at least. Whatever the case, I hope they keep it up and continue on the path they are on.
cheater

you do know the star trek trailer came out in the trailers before the movie
Laser-beak

The message: Don't trust oil, don't sit down with terrorists, and DO NOT TRUST ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
Laser-beak

Oh yeah, I'm gonna miss Olga Kurylenko. I don't think I've ever liked a Bond Girl as much as her. Not by a long shot.
http://jrc-1138.blogspot.com/ moif

I loved it. Craig is now my favourite Bond.
http://my.spill.com/profile/Kent Kent

A little too short, and that location at the end had NO EXPLANATION! WHAT WAS THAT PLACE?! Some random super eco friendly resort in the middle of the desert for no reason? Ummmm ok then.
http://www.skonmovies.com/ Sean Kelly

I found it entertaining enough. Thought I could have done with less of the Bond meets Bourne stuff.
Itri

I thought it was pretty great. It seemed too short compared to the last one, but I found everything but the Bourne/Greengrass editing to be a blast.
freestyLes

the movie was effing terrible and i feel like crap saying this cause im a loyal bond fan. story was completely confusing. the first action sequence was the best with his aston martin. other than that, everything else was shit. i hope marc doesn't direct the next one for the love of god. it felt like daniel craig had more potential to do so much more and marc's directing totally stopped him from doing it. camera shots are was too quick. characters popping out of nowhere. i was lost throughout the movie. so disappointing, so disappointing.
RandyG

I loved Casino Royale but QOS is awful. Craig does his best but he's been transformed into a Terminator in a tux. Superhuman strength, inexhaustible memory banks, more machine than well-trained agent. And Forster's direction makes things even worse. The hyper-active camera work may seem like it might obscure the predictable and paper-thin plot but it doesn't. And someone pulling the strings is obviously gay as this is the un-sexiest Bond film ever. We see more of the Bond girl's scars than we do of her cleavage. The three of us left the theatre almost furious that we had wasted our time and money. Really, it's a scam. QOS is going to open huge, and then sell about 1/10th the dvds that Casino Royal did.
Bankai

I'll make ti short and sweet it was a good movie but like many others have said it has nothing and I mean nothing on casino royale. To many action scenes not enough story
http://www.thereliableinfo.com/reviews/MattWutzke.html Matt Wutzke

Oh God I made a mistake ! I watched this movie last evening but wasn't as good as the previous ones.The action scenes weren't up to the mark as well as the villain was not a strong opponent of bond! This movie for sure goes into one of the bad movies of Bond.
Justin o

I think this bond Is more bad-ass bond. A bond that can get take the pain and still kick ass. I'll agree the Camera was shaky with action sequences. But all around great bond movie i would rank it very high in bond movies. 1. Goldfinger 2. Live or live die. 3 Quantum of solace 4. Goldeneye 5. Casino royale out of 22 movies is it now?
big r

I though Q.O.S. was awesome. I read alot of these comments before going into the movie and i completely understand where all of you are coming from. I mean the quick editing, the fast car scene, boat scene etc. I still loved the movie. I cant say im a bond fan because i havent seen ALL the bond movies but i have seen enough. Casino Royale is my favorite bond film and it was very very intelligently done. Q.O.S. was not on par with C.R. but i still enjoyed it. When i watched Q.O.S. i was watching it saying... ''oh this is what some people had a problem with''. but it didnt bother me too much. I didnt feel like it was too short, i felt it ended at just the right time to be honest. I feel that since the movie took place RIGHT after C.R. that it didnt need its own story so much. I mean its right from C.R., we know whats going on. Also Q.O.S. wasnt really that hard to follow as far as the story, i mean call me stupid but it made sense to me. I would give it an 8/10. Again its my humble opinion, i was satisfied. Next is TDTESS!!
MrTimothy31

Daniel Craig and the rest of the cast carried over from Casino Royal were still great. The plot continued to drop hints and build expectations for a greater criminal conspiracy, reminiscent of the classic bonds, but don't expect any underwater fortress' or space stations. (spoiler alert) The great evil scheme this time was to overthrow a tiny third world nation in order to start a utilities company! Ughhh!? you might think, that's it? yeah me too. Meanwhile numerous plot points got left hanging with no resolution, hopefully they will be in the next bond. The villain was great, but I would have liked to see him developed further. The movie was still entertaining, and could have been great if not for the shooting and editing of the action scenes. Close ups and shaky camera shots, like "in her majesties secret service" wasted most of what should have been spectacular action scenes, by making them impossible to follow or place in context, leaving instead a sense of violent confusion better suited to steven segal than a bond film.
Keith

There were alot of great moments (e.g. Agent Mitchell shooting at Bond and M, Bond interrupting the conversation of The Organization at the opera, etc) but these didn't make up for the lack of attention to the narrative. The short running time, in comparison to Casino Royale, leads me to believe that a great portion of the story was left on the editing room floor, although the reason remains unclear. Given Casino Royale's incredible success, you would think the studio would try to emulate it in every way possible. The reason why Casino Royale was so great, and subsequently did so well, is because it was a great drama, first and foremost. Every scene relied upon conflict and suspense as its driving force. The story, although simple (to beat Le Chiffe in a poker game and bring him in for questioning), had many sub-plots and was executed brilliantly. The acting was fantastic, the scenes between Daniel Craig and Eva Green were terrific. And if you can recall, the action scenes were far between (albeit they were all incredible). Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, relied upon action scenes to be the driving force of the film. They were all good, but not fantastic. The cinematography of the car chase that opens the film, which was too close and fast moving, combined with the lightning fast editing did it a major disservice. These same techniques (a la Jason Bourne) were used throughout the entire film, unfortunately. The plot of the film was not bad, it a lot of promise, but because it was given so little consideration (in the final cut) it suffered. Given all of my criticism of the film one would think I disliked it, but in fact I enjoyed the film. It should be noted that I am not a newcomer to the Bond series; I am not one of those people whom Alex mentioned that jumped aboard the series with Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace is head and shoulders above all of the Pierce Brosnan films (save Golden Eye) but it is not nearly on the same level as Casino Royale.
Drunkimus

kingjimbo well done I agree 100% Nolan should do the next one
big r

Keith number 50, your post had alot of what i was trying to say. You make excellent points. Im not technically savvy when it comes to movies but you hit the nail on the head. The main thing is that you still enjoyed the film which was my main thing. I guess i didnt know how to describe my view as well as you did. thanx
Peluco

I always enjoy to watch James Bond on the big screen because is like going on vacations around the world in less then 2 hours... You get all your clichés and action without any sense or logic... Once again I ordered a big popcorn and a giant cola and didn't get dissapointed. This Ukrainian girl BTW is pretty Bolivian looking. The cicatrice in her back was lame! 7 out of 10
http://tshayes.com Tyler Hayes

I actually didn't read any comments after kingjimbo's (#23) because he was so succinct. Perfect Couldn't agree more! FirstShowing should hire kingjimbo to write reviews
Shawn Gregory

Thanks to #25 Vitor, for a very truthful, knowledgeable & unbiased review. Most of the writers here definitely never grew up with Bond. They definitely never read Ian Fleming's 007 novels. They probably have only seen Pierce Brosnan as Bond. Surely, they have not seen the Bourne movies. Alex is for Blonde Bonds - his favorite being Roger Moore followed by Craig Daniel. In Ian Fleming's novel - Casino Royale, the heroine Vesper Lynd remarks, "Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless." Likewise, in Moonraker, Special Branch Officer Gala Brand thinks that Bond is "certainly good-looking . . . Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold." Daniel Craig has everything cold & cruel in his face. He gives away his identity as a Spy who is Licensed to Kill. (Which was what I hated in the movie .... he killed almost every suspect he met.) Don't get me wrong ... I believe Daniel Craig is a DAMN GREAT ACTOR, but he is lacking so much as Bond. He does so well in his other films, but not as 007. I'm a really big fan of 007 and I have liaised with EON Productions many times for licensing business in Asia. So, when one reads a 'reviewer' who gets orgasm because of the action scenes and Daniel Craig kicking ass, one knows the reviewer is pretty new to Bond, Action Movies & Jason Bourne. I will not touch on scenes from the movie, as so many have already highlighted 'spoilers' in their reviews. Unfair to those who have not watched QoS. I like the movie but it still loses out to Goldeneye & Casino Royale. These first 2 movies from Daniel Craig depicts the early steps in Bond's career as a '00' agent for MI6, thats why I'm willing to watch him. But I hope the next 2 - 3 movies will see him building up the suave & sophisticated persona that is Bond. As it is, Craig lacks the looks. Fortunately, he has a few great movies coming. Don't forget to catch Defiance. So, for those of you who don't like what I have to say ... go hold your mum's hand and cry in a corner. Gime Bond .... James Bond. Not Jason Bourne.
david

I saw it tonight. The only interesting gadget was the "Surface"-like table at MI-6. While I like Craig as Bond, the editing was indeed a lot of quick cuts which sucked. The problem I found was that I didn't really engage with the Bond character in this film. Casino Royale was much better. In QOS, it all seemed very detached for some reason. Can't quite put my finger on it. This did seem more like Jason Bourne as others have said. The ending didn't make much sense either and seemed rather anti-climatic. Bond needs to engage the audience more in the performance in the next film. And stop thrashing those Aston Martins!
Lopretni

Craig looks more like a stereotypical American action hero than James Bond, so I have yet to see either movie. James Bond is supposed to be this super suave guy who bangs hot chicks and saves the world. Not blondie who is "younger and more vulnerable". Eh.
Oldschool

In a word, CRAP. Shaky cameras and mile a minute action scenes don't make for a good movie if there is nothing to back it up and here there is absolutely nothing. The writing is horrible, did these guys ever bother to even read a Bond novel? Did they see a Bond film? These things are doubtful. The main villain here seems like a flunky and not the guy in charge. Maybe it was the actor but he sure wasn't a Dr. No or Goldfinger. Oh and the supposed homage to Goldfinger, girl on bed covered in oil, that was weak. Someone mentioned that we have to wait for the third to know what is going on, what? This is Bond, it's not a trilogy. These films should stand on there own. This film reminded me of SW EP I no point. The whole thing is setting you up for some film in the future? Just a mess. Of course proving once again that enough hype will get us into the theaters so it doesn't need to be good, or intelligent or comprehensible.
buzzfunk

After a great reboot that was CR they forgot what Bond is really about. QOS is a decent action movie but by far nowhere near a good Bond movie. i understand that times change and having a bad guy with any sort of underground layer, a shark tank and a watch with a build in laser won't do it anymore. But the very essence that Is Bond was totally ignored here. Realistic is good but how realistic do you want Bond to be, really? Where's the wit? Humor? In this age of Iphones you cannot tell me for one sec that theres no way to come up with a cool modern gadget? And for a rather minor issue but who in gods name thought its a good idea to pair Jack white out of all people with the amazing Alica keys? let alone let him sing in a duet?? lol..just awful. Overall i was disappointed. I do not feel the urge to see it again which isnt a good thing cause I can even watch a few of the painful Brosnan movies again...
http://www.paynebyname.com Payne by name

As my brother said it really was one step forward and two steps back. Bad guys that weren't credible, especially when physically fighting with Bond. A woeful Bond girl in Fields that served absolutely no purpose other than to hark back to pointless non-pc bits of skirt, action scenes ruined by shaky cam or art w*nk overlaid to opera, M providing virtually all of the exposition to the story because the rest was just everywhere, a step away from realism to silliness, pointless hotels in the middle of nowhere with combustible hydrogen 'shoot to escape' panels, an all seeing, over arching organisation that exists and disappears as and when the writers see fit, believability issues in that even though M dramatically stops his movement with cards and passports Bond still manages to travel 1st class in a three piece suit even though he has no suitcases (if restricting his movement has no effect or relevance - why say it). Very disappointing. All the gains made in CR thrown away for cheap gimmicks and drama free action scenes. http://www.paynebyname.com
http://www.myspace.com/apocalypze DJ Sid

I thought it was pretty good. I think more storyline could be devoted to the bad guys who go to operas to have secret meetings. It was a fun ride overall. Look forward to the next one.
http://jrc-1138.blogspot.com/ moif

Seems like a lot of people are sore that Bond isn't the man they used to love any more. Too bad. Get over it, because he's not going to chnage back to the techno gadget buffoon of previous days. There's no more soup on those bones. I guess this is whats meant by a 're-imagining'... Its a whole new beginning, seeing Bond as he would be, today, and not in 1955. Frankly I'm glad they did. QoS is the first Bond film I've ever been excited about going to see, and yes, I've seen them all and read most of the books too. And personally I don't think he's anything like Jason Bourne. Bourne is a child by comparison, a vague, shallow character. Bond is a whole other creature. Bond is the man they would send out to kill Jason Bourne.
RandyG

moif: I think you're missing what most people are disappointed over regarding QoS. The story was uninspired, the bad guy was lame, the shooting style (the reference to Bourne) is chaotic and the crutch of a mediocre filmmaker, the theme music, song and opening titles were low-rent, and the Bond girls were juiced with as much sexiness as Judi Dench's ass. Not really anything to do with pining for the past. Quantum of Solace is awful by any measure.
j money

Kinda wild seeing a "not smooth," gadget-less & defeated James Bond take public transportation... That's kinda what QoS amounted to. I wanted this franchise to take off (and it had a chance) but it almost looks like it needs another reboot. And For someone they would send after Jason Bourne, Bond does a horrible impression of him.
Shawn Gregory

Thanks RandyG for helping clear the air. Its very obvious many claim to have read all of Ian Fleming's Bond novels & watched EON Production Bond movies, when they definitely have not. Hell, they don't even know what jason bourne is. Anyways, QoS is pretty lobsided. I just watched it the 3rd time to capture its strengths. It had many potential but came out short most of the time. I found Daniel Craig more of a 'Superman' than a human Bond. Yes, everything was gritty and more realistic, but this Bond never made me wonder if he could really defeat the Villains. You know that he's gonna whack them to Hell, & he's gonna come out the winner. So predictable. Although he comes out bleeding and clothes dirty, but he has killed almost all of the villains. So superhuman! Unlike original Bonds, you always see them hurt or trapped by the villains .... & then Bond has an intellectual verbal sparring to get out of the tight spot. Or he uses a gadget to free himself. Bring back some minor gadgets. Daniel Craig just keeps kicking and whacking people .... to death. Where is the fun in that? Leave it to Mr Bourne, he has more reason to do it. daniel craig is much more Charismatic in Defiance.
Eric

Great action movie. Not so much a great 007 flick. I feel if you like Bond movies as I do these new films don't fallow the same path. Craig plays a bad @$$ but not Bond. He is not the proper English man that others before him were. Like I said great action movie not so great Bond movie. (PS the Bond girls are still hot.)
Richie

I'm a Bond fanatic and I've been reading a lot of justified negative criticism towards 'Quantum Of Solace'. I'm not going to change anybody's mind about the movie but what I do want to say about QoS is that it totally works when viewed right after watching 'Casino Royale'. It doesn't work as a stand alone film. It's a sequel. It's not a separate entity from CR but a continuation. That's why there's more action than story this time around. James Bond is pissed off. He wants revenge. He has nothing to smile about until he gets the answers he's looking for, which fortunately for us we see at the end of the film. His character's mannerisms have been a work in progress thus far when compared to the movies before the reboot but he looks to be on his way for the next installment since we see the gun barrel sequence at the end of QoS. I do think that some of the action made Bond more superhuman than he was in CR (DC3 plane sequence especially). Many have complained about the quick edits and flashes during the action scenes but I was able to follow it with just one viewing. After watching movies where the shaky cam style is prevalent like 'Cloverfield' and the action scenes for 'The Bourne Supremacy' and 'Batman Begins', one should be able to follow QoS during multiple viewings. I'll continue to enjoy Daniel Craig's interpretation of James Bond. He's continuing what Timothy Dalton started in 'License To Kill' (One of my personal favorites). BTW, people have noticed the homage to 'Goldfinger' but no one has mentioned the little semi-nod to 'The Spy Who Loved Me'. It takes place when Bond has the bodyguard at the roof of the opera. The bodyguard is about to fall off the edge of the roof and grabs a hold of Bond's shirt for support. Bond then takes a cold quick swipe of the bodyguard's hand off his shirt and he falls off the roof.
http://jrc-1138.blogspot.com/ moif

Shawn And Randy. I know what Jason Bourne is, I've read Ludlum's novels. Your reactions are typical of the jilted lover, but sulking isn't going to change the fact that Daniel Craig is James Bond now. You don't like it? Then don't watch it.
RandyG

moif: I know what Jason Bourne is, I've read Ludlum's novels. Okay, you've mastered Reading 101 but it's time to work on your comprehension. Are you truly as dense as you suggest? Almost no one has a problem with Daniel Craig as Bond. I loved Casino Royale and I was looking forward to seeing DC in the role again. QoS is moviemaking at its most mediocre and that's in spite of another terrific performance by DC as Bond (man, this is getting tiring keeping it simple for you).
j money

To add to RandyG (which was well said), the movie just wasn't enough of what Bond has embodied the 20+ other times on the big screen. I felt short changed in that all of the most exciting parts movie were featured in the TV ads (and the poster didn't even tie in). It's really really SAD when the best part about seeing a James Bond movie opening night ...was the Star Trek Trailer. No joke. I really wanted this movie to work, but frankly it didn't and don't want to make the same mistake twice. And in terms of this whole Bourne thing... Let me put this into perspective; Watching QoS was like watching a Jason Bourne wear a tux and drive a car that shoots missles. Just doesn't equate to what why we like him in the first place. The Bond people should know better.
http://jrc-1138.blogspot.com/ moif

RandyG Good for you. I happened to like it, as did most other people I know who have watched it. The fact that it deviates from previous films doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor does the way it was filmed. I don't want to see Casino Royale all over again, nor do I want to see Bond get captured yet again so he can go through the same boring plot that he's been through so many times before. Quantum of Solace is a true sequel, and I have no doubt the next film will continue the story line making for a perfect over all plot. As for mediocrity, art is subjective and your taste does't hold a monopoly on what constitutes good art.
big r

I think #66 makes a very good point. Its not a stand alone film. Its a SEQUEL. It literally left off from CR, it should be mostly action. We already know what happened in CR so they dont have to elaborate on the story as much. Thats what CR was for. Maybe in the next installment we will really see whats going on with Quantum.
http://crabby.com crabby

The story-line was confusing but the action was great. It was not better than Casino Royal. I still like this Bond better than most of the others. Overall grade ... B
Rob

I found it to be too short and took a giant step back from CR in developing characters and the people surrounding Bond. Yes, the film is centered on one man, but if the audience can't make a connection with him and they continue to just go back to action scenes to fill in the holes (car chase, boat chase, plane chase etc.) then your losing the soul that made CR one of the best Bond's ever. Given the story line was much more complex then CR, I expected this to be much better then CR; they had so much in which to work with but they fell short and gave way to the action kiddies out there who don't really want a story.
bombboy

This is without doubt one of the best Bond movies in years, being an ardent and rather old Bond fan I appreciate and respect Marc Forster's sensitivities to bring modern elements to the franchise. Casino Royale was a good movie, but QOS is an even better effort as the makers have managed to creep in older typical Bond elements which was lacking in CR and it certainly enhances viewing pleasure for old aficionado like me. Well done and keep it up team.
jayemcee

Reasons why I hated about this new Bond movie: 1. Fast-paced editing and shaky cam ruined the elaborate action scenes. It does not give me any adrenalin punch...boring. 2. Alicia Keys and Jack White's "Another Way to Die "is one of the worst and dullest opening theme song ever made for a Bond movie joining the roster of Madonna's Die another day and Cornell's You know my Name. Such rubbish! 3. Icons related to Bond were deliberately strip off like the iconic catchphrase "My name is Bond, James Bond". Perhaps the producers were aware that there's an impostor that inhabited the movie and his name is Bourne, Jason Bourne! 5. Director Marc Forster is no good in directing a Bond movie. He just copied the directorial elements of the Bourne franchise. Poor Bond, once a hallmark of a great Hollywood movie now a pure copycat of Bourne.
JoeShmo1595

I agree with #23 100%. Walking out of the theatre, I was overall impressed, dispite the first chase sequence, which in my opinion, was the only part in the film that stuck me as Bourne like action, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it ruined the movie. Realising at the end credits that Quantum of Solace was not an ending but a setup for a third, I'm excited to see Craig at his best in what I believe will be a great conclusion to a phenomenal series of 007 films.
John

I think it was a great movie. Bond was angry and dangerous. He improvised really well, and the shaky camera thing, although a little frustrating, emphasised how fast things happened, and how fast bond reacted. Can anybody tell me this: when bond walked into that man's apartment just before he met Camille, what happened? they had a fight, smashed a few windows, and suddenly the man was lying there looking surprised holding the small scrape on his neck, and bond was sitting there facing the other way and by the looks of it he was doing something to the mans leg, and then he died. did he bleed to death somehow or what?
nizerosiete

ok, my take will be different. i didn't like QoS simply bec it didn't really improve the reboot Bond. It actually remove the "Bondness" of Bond movies. here's how i would improve it to feel more like the franchise is moving towards Bond: 1. Give Craig some laxative at least during those times when he's with a woman. He can act like a thug for all he wants with the baddies(in fact he doesnt have to since he looks like one) but he needs to show he's having a good time whenever he's with some hot chicks especially during bed scenes. he can get some tips from Sean on this. 2. Fire the gay writers and put some women scenes. remember the part they fell from the plane, they could have landed on an underground water. Camille could had gone up wet for all of us to see and they made out there. i mean, come on, camille can sleep with a bad guy and she won't with the guy who saved her life at least twice? 3. fire the action guy and hire the matrix action choreographer. 4. we don't need anymore scenes of bond killing an informer, we need him killing the henchman. 5. fire the musci arranger. we need more bond like music. alicia keys just wasted some talent. 6. he needs to say bond, james bond.
nizerosiete

btw, i forgot, stop making bond into a grammy material! bond is a man's movie and genre. it's suppose to make us have theidea of cavoriting hot women and gadgets, not some british or grammy statues. hire tarantino for the next one. bond franchise survived this long bec we want to watch the old movies again and again due to it's unique bond signature(i.e. car scenes, skimpy clad women, viewable fight scenes like FRWL's train fight) and music that makes us want to play it while driving our jaguars. jason bourne has it own's genre. it was quite funny and sad at the same time for me to realize when craig said on his playboy interview that all along they were trying to avoid austin power's infusion in their movie. well, all the austin powers movies(especially the first one) has more feel of the bond movie that QoS. i have more fun watching them as a spy genre even though it's a spoof. heck, mission impossible movies feel more james bondish than the last two barbara brocolli made. well, i guess see you all on the next bond movie. or should i say nest should-be bond movie. again, craig, laxatives are not that expensive. drink some. no wonder camille pulled out on you when you kissed her on the last scene. drink a couple of swigs of exlax prior kissing anybody. hehehe.
lalafrog2003

James Bond was the shit. and the car chase was sickkkkk. seriously, i have never really watched the bond movies....but daniel craig gets the job done ))
Yeah

Boring as hell, the movie dragged on and went from one chase scene to the next. The story was lacking of any innovation, the camera work was just aweful and Craig has no personalty what-so-ever. I will admit that their have been some laughable scenes in James Bond movies but this movie didn't even feel like a James Bond movie. It felt like a generic action movie with a high budget. I usually love Bond movies but I chalk this one up as one of the Dalton flops, with a worse actor in Craig. If action is all you are interested in Transporter 3 was more enjoyable. You could have stuck anybody in the weak role of Craig's Bond and they could have pulled off the whole killer-spy aspect (minus the spy) that Craig has.
Zaharoula

Quantum of Solace was one of the worst films of 2008 along with Indiana Jones !
http://www.metricktraining.com Web Based Training

I liked Casino Royale, but this was much better. Interesting set up for the next movie with this super hush-hush Quantum organization. And M's frustration with James added a bit of humor without throwing water on the fire. As for people compaining about Craig's so called bad acting.. Bond is suppose to be a cold fish. If he played the role any differantly it wouldn't be James Bond.
http://downloadblogs.blogspot.com downloadblogs

I love watching this movie cause it full of action. thumb up
cheap bras

Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!