Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 14, 2008
6.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 755 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
359
Mixed:
300
Negative:
96
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
Fail1Mar 3, 2011
Over dramitised

I now understand why people kill themselves, with movies like this and Casino Royale, what the h3ll is wrong with the directors of today. I believe the world would be better if the just drowned themselves in a bucket of their
Over dramitised

I now understand why people kill themselves, with movies like this and Casino Royale, what the h3ll is wrong with the directors of today. I believe the world would be better if the just drowned themselves in a bucket of their own urine and aired that instead of this crap. At least then people would be left with a sense of satisfaction. Very very poor.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
DeVr33zAug 30, 2010
A huge disappointment after the stellar Casino Royale. Hopefully the next 007 film can try to bring back the Bond we all know and love. I don't like this brooding antihero guy.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
ERG1008Aug 24, 2010
Daniel Craig's second outing as 007.
BIG set pieces, lots of carnage (Bond seems to wreck every location he goes to), fast, furious & slightly silly.
Bit of a mess this one & doesn't really hold together as the brilliant Casino Royale did.
Daniel Craig's second outing as 007.
BIG set pieces, lots of carnage (Bond seems to wreck every location he goes to), fast, furious & slightly silly.
Bit of a mess this one & doesn't really hold together as the brilliant Casino Royale did.
Craig is fine & basically an emotionless maniac which, considering his profession, is what he'd be.
Nice perfomances also by Olga Kurylenko (Blimey Charlie!!) & the great but under-used Giancarlo Giannini.
The bad guys aren't as a prominent as other films but it's still a damn sight better than any of the awful Pierce Brosnan films.
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
7
GoldenEye16Aug 22, 2010
Tooooo short and not enough lighter/comedic moments. All bond does is go around shooting people and then doesn't even kill the one guy at the end. The action was good besides the shaky camera which I personally don't like. Not really aTooooo short and not enough lighter/comedic moments. All bond does is go around shooting people and then doesn't even kill the one guy at the end. The action was good besides the shaky camera which I personally don't like. Not really a good bond movie but a decent action movie. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
8
MDJul 22, 2009
My family and I were extremely disappointed in "Casino Royale" and after watching it again, I still can't figure out how it got any good reviews. "Quantum of Solace" on the other hand was much more enjoyable and DC finally starts to act My family and I were extremely disappointed in "Casino Royale" and after watching it again, I still can't figure out how it got any good reviews. "Quantum of Solace" on the other hand was much more enjoyable and DC finally starts to act more like James Bond rather than the thug he was in the previous movie. This movie is not perfect, but it was entertaining and it gives me hope that this "reinvented" Bond is evolving into someone we can like again. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
AnthonyFJul 16, 2009
Never have I been this critical with any Bond film. The Man with the Golden Gun was pretty bad, but this one was just off the charts. Never have I seen a Bond film suffer from an identity crisis this bad. The film is a mess. The Never have I been this critical with any Bond film. The Man with the Golden Gun was pretty bad, but this one was just off the charts. Never have I seen a Bond film suffer from an identity crisis this bad. The film is a mess. The screeplay's a mess, the action scenes are a mess and even the climax is a mess. I don't think James Bond needed to be restarted, I think he needed a good screenplay thrown his way. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
6
CiaranGJun 29, 2009
With absolutely no explanation of what is going on from scene to scene, what could potentially be a very interesting storyline becomes a mess of over-dramatic action scenes. James Bond just happens to find himself in exotic places on boats, With absolutely no explanation of what is going on from scene to scene, what could potentially be a very interesting storyline becomes a mess of over-dramatic action scenes. James Bond just happens to find himself in exotic places on boats, planes and fast cars but with no explanation... Also, for the first time, I get the feeling that this James Bond is as bad as the other villains! James Bond is supposed to be the hero, not the revenge-seeking murderous d*ck. Action scenes are fun to watch and they happen in a good variety of locations around the world - this is all that saves this film. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
TonyHMay 8, 2009
I enjoy the way Daniel Craig interprets his Bond character and really appreciate that there is less focus on the "gadgetry" than in all the Bond movies. I really get a sense that this Bond cares about what and why he does what he does for a living.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
AlexHMay 7, 2009
A horrible film consisting of no plot, no story, no acting and no sense. James Bond is not a action hero, get that straight Hollywood, and next time actually try to make a new Bond film a good one and a memorable one. "Quantum of Solace" is A horrible film consisting of no plot, no story, no acting and no sense. James Bond is not a action hero, get that straight Hollywood, and next time actually try to make a new Bond film a good one and a memorable one. "Quantum of Solace" is one of the worst of 2008. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
LawrenceTMay 5, 2009
This movie could have had some of the best action sequences. But it lacked that and lacked the charm which you would expext from a bond. Daniel is making the franchise fall because everywoman he sleeps with dies. He should have had a bond This movie could have had some of the best action sequences. But it lacked that and lacked the charm which you would expext from a bond. Daniel is making the franchise fall because everywoman he sleeps with dies. He should have had a bond with no sequels. But this film puts the hype and has more action which I like and I loved this movie because we saw something new instead of all the James Bond movies. He is not trying to save the world and he is just out for revenge. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
EmanTMay 4, 2009
Never before has there been such abuse of the name bond. All those years theve spent building a franchise only to have this aboination to come along. The story was week and confussing, the fighting was good but covereing a girl in oil??? Never before has there been such abuse of the name bond. All those years theve spent building a franchise only to have this aboination to come along. The story was week and confussing, the fighting was good but covereing a girl in oil??? Come up with an orginal idea rather than stealing from other bond films. Everyone envovled is a turd. End of. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
1
SteveCApr 16, 2009
What a dismal Bond movie. It had none of the character development or plot of the last one. Purely two-dimensional. On top of that, the actions scenes are shot in the increasingly popular super-close style that makes it so you can't What a dismal Bond movie. It had none of the character development or plot of the last one. Purely two-dimensional. On top of that, the actions scenes are shot in the increasingly popular super-close style that makes it so you can't tell what's actually going on. I frequently couldn't determine which black car or black suit was chasing the other. Overall, profoundly disappointing. Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful
8
GeorgeMApr 6, 2009
Bond is back again...and Craig is on his second film playing everyone's favorite spy. Quantum picks up alsmot immediately after the events of the Casino Royale...so there is little time to get ready for this film, because it starts out Bond is back again...and Craig is on his second film playing everyone's favorite spy. Quantum picks up alsmot immediately after the events of the Casino Royale...so there is little time to get ready for this film, because it starts out "balls to the wall" and rarely lets up till the big explosive finale. In comparison to the first (Casino Royale), Quantum of Solace lacks a bit...whether it be the story the directorial style...nothing about this film seems as elegant or as well put together as its predecessor...it definately amps up the action a few notches however. The action scenes better choreographed and far more explosive...so it certainly excedes Casino in that regard. It's really the story and lack of substance that make this film a bit ho-hum at times...its just not interesting to follow, something about a greedy enviromentalist on the hunt for oil and he isn't afraid to lie and kill to get what he wants and then this even less important story about a girl trying to get revenge on a general for brutally killing her family (yawn)...but you really won't care about any of that, it almost seems like filler until you get to the real meat of what this movie is about...ACTION and lots of it, as its easy to see where most of the care went. Casino Royale is a far more polished Bond film...Quantum is certainly watchable and its actually quite entertaining as a hollow action film, it dosent seem to really expand on the Bond character other than we know he is even MORE upset and far more lethal in his methods now than before. it comes HIGHLY RECOMMENDED...if you are looking for action, this is it, if you are looking for story....i strongy recommend you watch Casino Royale to catch up. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
5
CutSceneApr 4, 2009
The most action-oriented Bond movie that I can remember seeing. I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the way the scenes were done. I literally can't watch the action scenes in the movie. I get so The most action-oriented Bond movie that I can remember seeing. I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the way the scenes were done. I literally can't watch the action scenes in the movie. I get so frustrated by following whats going on through the cut-scene-orama that it makes me angry. Did anyone who made this movie actually watch it when they were done? That was a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious. No. My advice - dont drink 26 cups of coffee before you edit the next Bond movie. Thanks. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
MichelleSMar 28, 2009
I really did not enjoy this movie at all. I gave it a 3 because, for an action movie it had some cool action sequences. I didn't care for any of the actors in the movie either. I didn't care for the story.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
0
JaredJMar 25, 2009
Okay, after the horrid "Casino Royale," I thought that this was going to be a lot cleaner. It wasn't. The clasic "Gun barrel" opening was tossed away to the end of the film and done with horrorfying results. Bond is no longer an Agent Okay, after the horrid "Casino Royale," I thought that this was going to be a lot cleaner. It wasn't. The clasic "Gun barrel" opening was tossed away to the end of the film and done with horrorfying results. Bond is no longer an Agent he is a midless killing machine. Oh and if this is still part of 007's first mission EVER WHY THE *@!$ IS IT IN MODERN TIMES?! After "Die Another Day" we no longer get to see what Bond's next adventure is the re did the whole thing with crappy decisions! No story, tons of action that is poorly developed and RIPS off of Classic bond films! "Goldfinger" is in here but rip offed of it as well as "GoldenEye," "Thunderball," and "Live and Let Die" It has the Bond movie title and logo but it is NOT a Bond film, complete garbage. Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful
6
TomHMar 24, 2009
Spectacular scenes and good rhythm.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
JayHMar 22, 2009
It has all the right ingredients for a Bond flick - rapid pace, plenty of explosions, car chases, great special effects, great international settings and over the top action. Not the best of the Bond films, but it works. Very entertaining, It has all the right ingredients for a Bond flick - rapid pace, plenty of explosions, car chases, great special effects, great international settings and over the top action. Not the best of the Bond films, but it works. Very entertaining, outstanding production values. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
DougRFeb 7, 2009
Pitiful Bond movie. The last two are a real let down. No super spy gadgets, cars, etc. Just blow 'em away brutality. A raw film that rubbed me raw. In attempting to make super spying into some gritty, hardcore killer flick, the writers Pitiful Bond movie. The last two are a real let down. No super spy gadgets, cars, etc. Just blow 'em away brutality. A raw film that rubbed me raw. In attempting to make super spying into some gritty, hardcore killer flick, the writers have fallen prey to a neverland that would have the 00 spies bouncing off their asylum walls. Way over the top without the fantasy gadgets...too much unreal realism. What can I say to some it up? It was a real downer. Redeeming lines within the thing about forgiveness...that was good. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
0
MeJan 16, 2009
Where was the debonair 007? New 007 has no class, no catchy lines that got laughs, and completely lacks any sophistication as other Bond actors. Furthermore, the movie lacked the most entertaining elements: Where were Q and Moneypennie? Where was the debonair 007? New 007 has no class, no catchy lines that got laughs, and completely lacks any sophistication as other Bond actors. Furthermore, the movie lacked the most entertaining elements: Where were Q and Moneypennie? Where were the cool gadgets we've come to expect to see in all Bond movies? Again I ask where were the "Phrases that Pay"? Furthermore this movie was poorly edited. All action scenes were limited to an ungodly half second. They must have not done any retaked for the flubbed scenes and pieced together all the stuff they liked in the end to make it so choppy and hard to watch/follow with your eyes. Gave me a real headache. A true waste of film and the money DH and I spent to see this poorly filmed, acted and letdown of a 007 film. Truly a big letdown compared to Brosnan, Connery, Moore and Lazenby. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DanSJan 10, 2009
Plot, editing, and acting aside, I'm surprised no one seems to be complaining about the rapid-fire attempted rapes near the end. I'm not a huge Bond fan, but part of the fun of these movies is the cartoonishness. Moon-based lasers? Plot, editing, and acting aside, I'm surprised no one seems to be complaining about the rapid-fire attempted rapes near the end. I'm not a huge Bond fan, but part of the fun of these movies is the cartoonishness. Moon-based lasers? Fun. Slightly disturbing brutality? Not so much. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
4
SMDec 30, 2008
Although Quantum of Solace was kind of a continuation to Casino Royal, the latter was at least ten times more thrilling and thought-provoking than the former, and I guess this pretty much explains why everyone is disappointed with this new Although Quantum of Solace was kind of a continuation to Casino Royal, the latter was at least ten times more thrilling and thought-provoking than the former, and I guess this pretty much explains why everyone is disappointed with this new Bond movie. However, there is still enough excitement to watch it once. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
MBDec 23, 2008
So yes it's confusing. And yes upon leaving I had many unanswered questions. Not a huge fan of simply taking off from where the last left off. As I wasn't prepared for this I spent most of the opening car chase trying to remember So yes it's confusing. And yes upon leaving I had many unanswered questions. Not a huge fan of simply taking off from where the last left off. As I wasn't prepared for this I spent most of the opening car chase trying to remember the last bond film I watched two years ago. All that aside, the action is great. Craig is by far the most legitimate Bond character ever. Yes Connery was great, but Craig's character is a nice change from the boyish, unrealistic bonds of old. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DonK.Dec 20, 2008
The dialogue between Bond and M was just not convincing. Was the plot lame? Probably. What was the whole point dragging the poor guy from his home in he Mediterranean to get locked up in the trunk of a car in Bolivia - and eventually get The dialogue between Bond and M was just not convincing. Was the plot lame? Probably. What was the whole point dragging the poor guy from his home in he Mediterranean to get locked up in the trunk of a car in Bolivia - and eventually get killed? Yes teh plot was lame.... You don't speak to a President that way - sign the deal or you will get replaced. And if Bond could bumpo him off, why not the Bolivian President (or whoever that character was).... Still it was great entertainment. Awesome. So I give it a 7. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DominicG.Dec 20, 2008
Really enjoyed this movie - so much better than expected after reading mised reviews. The Bond team have truly reinvigorated this frachise just when it was on its last legs. A gripping, suspenseful plot that keeps the audience guessing, Really enjoyed this movie - so much better than expected after reading mised reviews. The Bond team have truly reinvigorated this frachise just when it was on its last legs. A gripping, suspenseful plot that keeps the audience guessing, worthy characters and break neck action sequences. I hope they can maintain this quality standard for the next one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MikeL.Dec 19, 2008
This story, while not written by Ian Flemming, is the natural extension of Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace explores the personal and professional issue that James Bond deals with in 'becomming Bond'. I found the film to be This story, while not written by Ian Flemming, is the natural extension of Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace explores the personal and professional issue that James Bond deals with in 'becomming Bond'. I found the film to be intelligent, well paced and in keeping with the Ian Flemming tradition. Quantum of solace should be viewed 3 to 4 times to truly appreciate the 'Art' of film making that was put into this project. Enjoy. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SimonM.Dec 13, 2008
I enjoyed this film! This is the only time since the mediocre "License to Kill" where Bond has been in official REVENGE mode, and Dalton didn't do it half as well as Craig. Sure it wasn't all quips and one liners, a'la Moore. I enjoyed this film! This is the only time since the mediocre "License to Kill" where Bond has been in official REVENGE mode, and Dalton didn't do it half as well as Craig. Sure it wasn't all quips and one liners, a'la Moore. Never the less I'm really liking this so called "gritty" Bond. My only trivial gripe was with the Bond baddy's lack of a gimmick (No deformity or pet peeve?!?). In the end: Great Bond film. Great revenge film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
GabrielJ.Dec 11, 2008
well I
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
tankjDec 11, 2008
I'm not sure why everyone wants to see the same cheesy Bond movie. Craig is the best bond yet (sorry Sean). The action in this movie is spectacular. It is not quite as good as Casino Royale but still very good.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JamesBondDec 10, 2008
Village Voice has it right - this was edited in a blender set on indecipherable. Utter garbage. Give me Brosnan or any other Bond for that matter. The director should never be allowed to work again.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
RichardSDec 10, 2008
The worst Bond film of all time. I thought nothing could be worse than Die Another Day. This manages it with some aplomb. The direction is horrible - all split second jump cuts designed to create excitement and stimulate action. It does The worst Bond film of all time. I thought nothing could be worse than Die Another Day. This manages it with some aplomb. The direction is horrible - all split second jump cuts designed to create excitement and stimulate action. It does nothing of the sort, only creating a sense of nausea. The story is boring and flat. Give me back the megalomaniac who wants world control and save me from these weary eco-stories. This has NOTHING in common with any Bond film. No sexiness, no gadgets, no exciting villain, no villain's lair, no henchman, no decent theme, no John Barry music, no intro, no nothing. The worst Bond film or all time, maybe one of the worst films of the year. Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful
9
tompDec 10, 2008
Ignore the critics, this is one of the best bond films ever.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
8
MarkWDec 9, 2008
The first Bond film I liked was Casino Royale the second is Quantum of Solace. I just can't stand the cheese associated with most Bond films so the last two instalments are a welcome relief. Still I guess I can understand why Bond fans The first Bond film I liked was Casino Royale the second is Quantum of Solace. I just can't stand the cheese associated with most Bond films so the last two instalments are a welcome relief. Still I guess I can understand why Bond fans are bitter, there are plenty of intelligent films out there so perhaps the Bond franchise should stick to what the Bond fans like. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
EricO.Dec 6, 2008
I've literally just returned from watching this Bond movie, and while walking out of the theater, my dad commented on what he considered to be the lame plot. Listen- no one should go to a Bond movie expecting a coherent plotline; in I've literally just returned from watching this Bond movie, and while walking out of the theater, my dad commented on what he considered to be the lame plot. Listen- no one should go to a Bond movie expecting a coherent plotline; in fact, they've never had coherent plotlines. Honestly, Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery and I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that. The girls in QOS are perfectly acceptable and the locales are exotic, as should be expected. The major flaw with this film is the quick-cut method and hand-held camera work used by the director during action sequences. Stuntmen were injured while making this Bond film, Craig lost part of his finger during an action sequence, but damned if you can tell what's going on at any point while the action takes place. As Bond films are all about the action sequences, the quick-editing and shaky hand-held camerawork destroys a good portion of the film as a whole. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
3
JackS.Dec 4, 2008
I'm not joking around, what the hell was the point to that movie? It has to be the worst 007 movie ever. The only movie that isn't written by Ian Flemming (he only mad the charecters not the story) turns out to be the worst. I know I'm not joking around, what the hell was the point to that movie? It has to be the worst 007 movie ever. The only movie that isn't written by Ian Flemming (he only mad the charecters not the story) turns out to be the worst. I know they could have made something so much better then that. What was the point to all that action? What is the bad thing thats going on right now? Why is there cars chasing eachother? Is that charecter good or bad? What is Greene trying to do with the world? So many questions are unclear once the movie is over. Everyone who saw it that I know said that they were lost the whole movie. It totally needed more talking and explaining for people to understand what is going on that whole movie. It can't pick off the first movie right when it starts. It is confusing and you have no clue what was going on most of the time until the end. And even still you are still lost in questions what was going on that movie. It was confusing, the action was pointless, it was nothing like the tranditional Bond movies. Ian Flemming is the writer of 007... there is no one else like him. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
PeterHDec 2, 2008
Terrible movie. While Craig has an aura of intensity about him which makes him a wonderful bond, the plot was absolutely terrible. At the beginning I thought that there would be more of a focus on the secretive 'company', but they Terrible movie. While Craig has an aura of intensity about him which makes him a wonderful bond, the plot was absolutely terrible. At the beginning I thought that there would be more of a focus on the secretive 'company', but they barely went into that. While I do not like films that are pointlessly dragged out to the extent of wasted time, this was at the opposite extreme; being too short to fulfill the plot or send any message to the audience. It was like trying to fit a 400 pound guy into small size clothing - it does not work. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
TomCDec 2, 2008
What Craig gains in the way of brutish subtlety means a loss of the charm and fun people expect from Bond films. Quantum is perfectly average, reaching the quota for explosions and attractive women, however; the plot is convoluted while What Craig gains in the way of brutish subtlety means a loss of the charm and fun people expect from Bond films. Quantum is perfectly average, reaching the quota for explosions and attractive women, however; the plot is convoluted while falling short of being intriguing, the action scene directing is frustratingly scrappy and most disturbingly it seems that the formally flirtatious attitude of Bond films has been abandoned. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
AronJ.Dec 1, 2008
As time goes on, and more bond films come out, the more they strey from who james bond is supposed to be, james bond is becoming more like rambo and Quantum is exactly that, just not james bond anymore, although watchable if you like action movies.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JohnDDec 1, 2008
After readiing the reviews I was expecting to be disappointed, but this Bond movie is one of the most exotic, intelligent and action-packed of all. Some really great sequences - all properly done - (no CGI) - and the close-up / quick cut After readiing the reviews I was expecting to be disappointed, but this Bond movie is one of the most exotic, intelligent and action-packed of all. Some really great sequences - all properly done - (no CGI) - and the close-up / quick cut MTV-style editing places the viewer right in the mayhem. Yes, it's brutal and there are absolutely no Moore-esque one-liners or gadgets, this is a Bond for adults. Recommended. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ASNov 29, 2008
After watching this movie, I've come to realize that many people (and especially critics) just didn't get it. It's part two of Casino Royale. It is a two-movie storyline that explains why he is who he is and why the love of a After watching this movie, I've come to realize that many people (and especially critics) just didn't get it. It's part two of Casino Royale. It is a two-movie storyline that explains why he is who he is and why the love of a woman will never again pull him away from his "job". It wasn't that the plot was weak as many as said. It was simply just an extension of the first movie's plot to wrap up James Bond's introduction to us in this format. There were obvious signs that the next movie will be a new plot in a more traditional Bond way. The first two movies set up who this Bond is...now we go forward. By the way, the entertainment value of this movie is still very high. It is such a good way to introduce the best bond of a new generation. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
LarryNov 28, 2008
On balance, no better or worse than "Casino Royale." Had its strengths, plus real weaknesses. Craig is a special Bond, as was Connery. The development of his relationship with 'M' has been excellent, probably the best element of On balance, no better or worse than "Casino Royale." Had its strengths, plus real weaknesses. Craig is a special Bond, as was Connery. The development of his relationship with 'M' has been excellent, probably the best element of two movies. Plot was thin, but not nearly as confusing as I'd been led to believe. Really disliked the denouement scenes in the weird desert hotel. Lacked cleverness and the action was forced on the viewer rather mindlessly. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JamesNov 28, 2008
Extremely poor plot and very far fetched, even for a bond flick. The director expects us to believe bond miraculously survives multiple certain death situations with giving even a hint as to how. I had hopes that the bond franchise had Extremely poor plot and very far fetched, even for a bond flick. The director expects us to believe bond miraculously survives multiple certain death situations with giving even a hint as to how. I had hopes that the bond franchise had wisened up given a more human nature of casino royale, but they have gone terribly of the rails this time around. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
MatthewR.Nov 27, 2008
Most people reviewing this film really don't seem to understand it at all. This film is a character study at its core. It serves as the bridge between what Bond was and what he will be for the foreseeable future (I hope). It is Most people reviewing this film really don't seem to understand it at all. This film is a character study at its core. It serves as the bridge between what Bond was and what he will be for the foreseeable future (I hope). It is excellent in every respect, even moreso than Casino Royalle, which I thought was fantastic. For those of you who miss hollowed out volcano bases and giant lasers in space, go watch Moonraker to your hearts' content. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
teriwanTNov 27, 2008
Worst Bond movie ever? I think not! In fact, I think that was Die Another Day. Ring any bells? Thank you Daniel Craig for reinstating my faith in the franchise. Sure, this film is not perfect, but its a definate step in the right direction. Worst Bond movie ever? I think not! In fact, I think that was Die Another Day. Ring any bells? Thank you Daniel Craig for reinstating my faith in the franchise. Sure, this film is not perfect, but its a definate step in the right direction. My only two complaints about this one are that the villian could have been more menacing and the action scenes not so poorly edited. Otherwise it was a very enjoyable night at the movies for me. I like the fact that they are moulding the character closer to Ian Flemmings original ideas of Bond and not the horrible cheese-and-wine character that Brosnan portrayed with his stupid remarks and lame jokes. Can't wait to see what they will do with the next installment! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JakeENov 24, 2008
Great movie, action was fluent, and the story was driven. It was smart and inolved great emotional fluctuation that seemed to combine together for a great fun movie. Craig is an awesome bond.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JIMBNov 24, 2008
this movie is by far better than the all the horror mivies being made today. at least bond uses more realistic toys in the new movies and not all the old gimimicks, car that dissapear, watches that can left 2 people without taking your arm this movie is by far better than the all the horror mivies being made today. at least bond uses more realistic toys in the new movies and not all the old gimimicks, car that dissapear, watches that can left 2 people without taking your arm off? Hope the new writers keep it real in the future as well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnnyG.Nov 24, 2008
What's wrong with a little action? Not as good as Casino Royale of course, but still good nonetheless. I had low expectations due to hearing poor reviews from people who had high expectations, so when I went into the film I left feeling What's wrong with a little action? Not as good as Casino Royale of course, but still good nonetheless. I had low expectations due to hearing poor reviews from people who had high expectations, so when I went into the film I left feeling very relieved and anything but dissappointed. True, I have not scene any bond film other than a Brosnan's or Craig's, but I have to admit, for what this film was, it was a good one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DorothyL.Nov 23, 2008
As a woman, I was looking forward to seeing Bond in another speedo, admiring his gorgeous physique and relishing in the delight of some outrageous plot to rule the world. Sadly, I was disappointed. The plot was weak, the bad guy looked As a woman, I was looking forward to seeing Bond in another speedo, admiring his gorgeous physique and relishing in the delight of some outrageous plot to rule the world. Sadly, I was disappointed. The plot was weak, the bad guy looked creepy and there was no seduction. It was all action and not much else. I still think Daniel Craig is the second best Bond, after Sean Connery and hope that the next installment will be a true Bond movie, not an action movie about someone getting revenge for a lost love. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
skNov 23, 2008
Very very poor bond movie. Bad story, and honestly quite a boring movie to watch. Makes the awesome Casino Royale look like a classic.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
0
DavidW.Nov 22, 2008
One terrible scene after another. Action set pieces are incoherent. The drama is dialed down. Craig's muscles are the most impressive thing on display. For the Bond movie with the biggest budget, this was a waste of a lot of money.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ScottENov 22, 2008
Like many of the other reviewers the story line was much too thin, even for a bond movie. The bad guys were totally forgettable. Their entire diabolical scheme is never even close to coming to fruition which doesn't lead to any sense of Like many of the other reviewers the story line was much too thin, even for a bond movie. The bad guys were totally forgettable. Their entire diabolical scheme is never even close to coming to fruition which doesn't lead to any sense of urgency to stop them. The American patsy operatives were boring and added nothing. Would have been better to stay home and watch Casino Royale again on DVD. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KevinFNov 22, 2008
Remember the good old days when part of the joy of a Bond movie was watching the gorgeous 'dames"...it's a sad commentary on the franchise that the highlight of this movie was again the "Dame". I found myself looking forward to her Remember the good old days when part of the joy of a Bond movie was watching the gorgeous 'dames"...it's a sad commentary on the franchise that the highlight of this movie was again the "Dame". I found myself looking forward to her scenes just because she was the only vaguely human presence in the movie. Don't get me wrong, I loved Casino Royal and thought it was a brilliant re-imagining of the franchise, and I have to say that this movie is well written (I guess that's to be expected when Paul Haggis is involved) but it had no real heart, in both senses of the word. Bond was marginally psychopathic (hard to root for a serial killer) and the set pieces were predictable. God bless Jason Bourne, I think the introduction of a more "Bourne like" texture to Bond is great but I think the director of the next Bond movie would do well to watch the Bourne movies again and figure out that all the great action in the world is hollow unless the audience cares about the outcome and the characters (gosh where have I heard that before) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
EliC.Nov 22, 2008
Film history will deem this the worst of the Bond movies. Even 'A View to a Kill' , the Bond film generally listed as the worst, is redeemable because of a good song and the presence of Grace Jones. Nothing in this tedious film Film history will deem this the worst of the Bond movies. Even 'A View to a Kill' , the Bond film generally listed as the worst, is redeemable because of a good song and the presence of Grace Jones. Nothing in this tedious film saves it except that I hope that we will still see Daniel Craig in the next film. He surely is a great James Bond. Nothing else in this 23rd in the series works. The music is awful, the plot is lame and the editing makes the action unviewable. At a short 105 minutes, this film need at least 30 more minutes to fill out basic plot. I knew that this film was in trouble within the first 15 minutes. After watching the incomprehensible pre-title sequence, I rewrote the screenplay in my head the way it SHOULD have been scripted. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
VS.D.Nov 21, 2008
Ugh. The story was nonsense. It made so little sense that at one point I wondered if the projectionist had skipped a reel.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ScottL.Nov 20, 2008
It was not dificult to tell that the was Forster's first time directing an action scene. The scenes were more than a little conrtived and the cuts made you spend more time wondering who was doing what. The acting was merely average. I It was not dificult to tell that the was Forster's first time directing an action scene. The scenes were more than a little conrtived and the cuts made you spend more time wondering who was doing what. The acting was merely average. I never got the feeling that Camille was really all that angry, and Bond seemed more like someone had killed his dog, not his lover. The villain was weak and his scheme was boring. All in all, this is one of those movies where I wish I had my time back more than my money. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BenjaminG.Nov 20, 2008
Just another Action Movie, not Bond anymore.
2 of 4 users found this helpful
4
DH.Nov 20, 2008
Daniel Craig's physical presence and intensity is definitely a plus for the current Bond series. The action was fast but the plot was a bit vague, giving the impression it was all over too quickly without really knowing what happened. Daniel Craig's physical presence and intensity is definitely a plus for the current Bond series. The action was fast but the plot was a bit vague, giving the impression it was all over too quickly without really knowing what happened. the main drawback I noticed was the subtle anti-American undertones; the American intelligence agent with the moustache that was portayed as a bumbling oaf, and the sublte comments about "the Americans just in it for the oil". Also; no "Q". I realize they're trying to get away from the sci-fi gadgetry that went overboard during the Brosnan era, but I don't think they should eliminate gadgetry all together. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChrisC.Nov 18, 2008
Very disappointing. I like the new portrayal of Bond, it's way more true to the Fleming novels than the campy crap of the overrated Connery ones and the foppish prettyboyness of Brosnan. And I'm happy to see the end of the random Very disappointing. I like the new portrayal of Bond, it's way more true to the Fleming novels than the campy crap of the overrated Connery ones and the foppish prettyboyness of Brosnan. And I'm happy to see the end of the random devices Bond just happens to come into the exact situation for him to need it. Craig is how Bond should be portrayed. But the action sequences were terrible. They were so contrived they came off like the Peter vs The Chicken sequences from Family Guy. The villains were completely uncompelling, the writing was just lame. It was just a cookie cutter action flick whose main character just happened to be named Bond. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BrianT.Nov 18, 2008
This was definitely in the lower echelon of Bond films. Daniel Craig is good, but this movie is weakly plotted and has an annoyingly thin story line. Some of the action sequences are murky, making it difficult to tell who's who. I found This was definitely in the lower echelon of Bond films. Daniel Craig is good, but this movie is weakly plotted and has an annoyingly thin story line. Some of the action sequences are murky, making it difficult to tell who's who. I found myself getting restless leg syndrome and it wasn't even a very long movie by Bond standards. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChristianT.Nov 18, 2008
I was never a bond fan because lets just face it, the franchise was always campy & ridiculous. I heard Casino Royale was totally different, and boy were they right. What an amazing movie that was, and possibly the best step any franchise has I was never a bond fan because lets just face it, the franchise was always campy & ridiculous. I heard Casino Royale was totally different, and boy were they right. What an amazing movie that was, and possibly the best step any franchise has ever made. I rarely see movies at the theatre anymore but Brandi & I decided to have a date night and we saw Quantum of Solace opening night on Friday (that's how much I liked Casino Royale). If Casino Royale was an A movie, Quantum of Solace was a C. The vibe I get from Daniel Craig in this movie is "get the job done at all costs", but while his confidence and smoothness is very "Bond" I'm afraid it came off as to "Bond". He wasn't "real" like he was in Casino, he wasn't emotionally motivated by revenge. Like Kevin was saying he was killing people but there was no fun in it. He wasn't really volnerable in this movie, either physically by the bad guys or with women (past or present). It was very much like Bourne (in fact I thought they took to many cue's from Bourne), except every time Bourne killed someone it had an effect on him. This movie was unfortunately made up of to much superficial action where you never really believe his life is in danger. There were to many scenes that were cheesy and absolutely impossible to survive to take the whole thing seriously. The ending was also anticlimactic, unlike Casino Royale where there was a delivery that echoed throughout this entire movie. It just seemed like Q of S is plagued by being stuck somewhere in the middle of the Daniel Craig legacy. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JackF.Nov 18, 2008
The starting scenes are just great. The concept of Bond being attacked just after he captures Mr. White is just great. Bond looks cool after the chase and the title song isn't that bad as everyone is saying. But the problem is that many The starting scenes are just great. The concept of Bond being attacked just after he captures Mr. White is just great. Bond looks cool after the chase and the title song isn't that bad as everyone is saying. But the problem is that many Bond formulas are repeated. "Bond style should be continued, not the franchise's formulas." They should retain the Vodka Martini and Aston Martins and Bond Girls(since they are his preferences) , but should keep the formula closer to real espionage. This film is gritty, no doubt, but the action scenes seem to be done for their sake alone. Like the knife scene and the plane scene. The fires and bombings at the climax are too boring and cliched. The good part is Craig's acting and they should let him act more. Judi Dench is of course brilliant and typecast in M's role. Atterton's role should have been longer. After all she was more attractive. Plus, some scenes were just not required. Like the horse race shown in the beginning and the Tosca concert. So, there is brilliance here and there, but overall the movie isn't as good as Casino Royale. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DanaM.Nov 17, 2008
I really wanted to like this movie. I really did. But this was a disjointed confusing series of chase and fight scenes. It was very hard to connect with any of the characters. I think Bond spoke between twenty and thirty words the whole I really wanted to like this movie. I really did. But this was a disjointed confusing series of chase and fight scenes. It was very hard to connect with any of the characters. I think Bond spoke between twenty and thirty words the whole movie. Did I say the plot was very confusing? Sorry Bond, no gold for you this time Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BradleeNov 17, 2008
If you wanted to see a James Bond Movie, then this isn't it. No cool toys for Bond, barely any Bond references. Could easily have been any action movie. Bottom line, no toys, no sex, barely any action.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BenH.Nov 17, 2008
Great addition to the Bond series. I'm not sure why it gets mixed reviews. If you are a fan of the franchise, you'll love this film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
AramisG.Nov 17, 2008
I like the new direction these Bond movies are taking. More cerebral and violent than older movies. Doesn't spell everything out and leaves lots of avenues open for other sequels (in a good way). If you are looking for stupid gadgets I like the new direction these Bond movies are taking. More cerebral and violent than older movies. Doesn't spell everything out and leaves lots of avenues open for other sequels (in a good way). If you are looking for stupid gadgets and unbelievable villains with silly world domination aspirations you have 30 years of other Bond movies to watch. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AlexC.Nov 17, 2008
Worst Bond film ever based on many facts: no character development, no depth to the plot, very plain action sequences (with many borrowed from previous films) and way too many loose ends. It seems like all the good scenes were edited out to Worst Bond film ever based on many facts: no character development, no depth to the plot, very plain action sequences (with many borrowed from previous films) and way too many loose ends. It seems like all the good scenes were edited out to leave this skeleton with no meat for a story. Wait for video. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
HollyC.Nov 17, 2008
This film is action packed from the start and doesn't really stop the entire way through---which is why I can see many people disliking the film for how little time is given to plotting/characters/plans (they try to shoehorn stuff in, This film is action packed from the start and doesn't really stop the entire way through---which is why I can see many people disliking the film for how little time is given to plotting/characters/plans (they try to shoehorn stuff in, but it can be confusing). I really liked the action sequences though and it's tightly written in that aspect. But I do think Casino Royal was much better. Many draw a comparison with Bourne--especially as QoS doesn't have a lot of the usual Bond elegance/humor/camp and gadgets. It's striped down and a pretty single-minded revenge tale. And really, the Bourne films do that much better. So hopefully Bond will return to his style/panache humor--etc---after this film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SteveB.Nov 17, 2008
My main beef is that the action, and there is a lot, is cut so frantically into little snippets that it's hard to follow. In the boat-fight scene, a grappling hook is thrown---where? Onto the other boat? That boat flies off behind--why? My main beef is that the action, and there is a lot, is cut so frantically into little snippets that it's hard to follow. In the boat-fight scene, a grappling hook is thrown---where? Onto the other boat? That boat flies off behind--why? Did it deflate it? Did it catch on something else? Who knows. See this movie and then watch Casino Royale again and you'll be surprised how much better CR is. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JimG.Nov 17, 2008
Poor plot, character development, and script kept this movie from being what it should be.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JacobV.Nov 17, 2008
I love the new bond who doesn't have outrageous gadgets and could actually be a real guy. This movie is great because you see how one dead end turns into a lead that becomes a whole operation. This movie doesn't sugarcoat anything. I love the new bond who doesn't have outrageous gadgets and could actually be a real guy. This movie is great because you see how one dead end turns into a lead that becomes a whole operation. This movie doesn't sugarcoat anything. Bond is ruthless and remorseless. He kills everything. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MichaelTNov 17, 2008
Not sure why this film is receiving mixed reviews. I thought it was great, and Daniel Craig was awesome. It was a bit different than other Bond movies, but not in a bad sense.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JacobCNov 17, 2008
Theres a plot...but its thin, and there is virtually no ending. Also, major questions go unanswered for the viewer, but not James Bond. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PeterONov 17, 2008
Good but not enough fun, bring back the gadgets.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
kvanNov 17, 2008
Time to retool the franchise again. The plot was horrible, and there was no chemistry between any of the characters. If they didn't bill this as a Bond movie, it would have gone right to DVD.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MateoZ.Nov 17, 2008
It's a sequel to a reboot on the whole franchise. It's about a Fleming Bond, a blunt instrument still finding his way towards refinement; on a revenge mission (so excuse the absence of puns and cheesy one-liners); a newly installed It's a sequel to a reboot on the whole franchise. It's about a Fleming Bond, a blunt instrument still finding his way towards refinement; on a revenge mission (so excuse the absence of puns and cheesy one-liners); a newly installed double-0 agent (so therefore a killing machine) and a Bond for the millennium. So all of you, relics from the cold war get real and get used to this. We are looking forward to a promising Bond future with Daniel Craig. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JeremyCNov 16, 2008
Extremely mediocre. It is clear that they were trying to hail back to the old bonds, unfortunately that is not what people want anymore, and it is completely possible to stay faithful without taking ten steps back. There was a complete lack Extremely mediocre. It is clear that they were trying to hail back to the old bonds, unfortunately that is not what people want anymore, and it is completely possible to stay faithful without taking ten steps back. There was a complete lack of continuity in the plot and the action. Casino Royale was great because it was as smooth as butter, the sequencing in Royale made sense and the action was logical. ""SPOILER"" 1. How is anything resolved just because Greene is killed. Quantum is still kicking, and they still own the land in Bolivia. 2. Why is the hotel blowing up??? The garage is directly connected to the reactor? And a car backs up into the fuel cell reactor exhaust at 20 mph and suddenly the entire structure explodes in a fireball? Are they so lazy they can't even think of a good reason for this sequence at the end? If so, I am sad that this is where Bond will be going "" SPOILER OVER "" . Quantum feels like every other spy/action movie that comes out every year, which is not what Bond should be, Bond should blow those out of the water, Quantum doesn't even come close. If Casino Royale were the Empire Strikes Back, Quantum would be Return of the Jedi. Heartlessly comical and disappointing. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AndrewNov 16, 2008
This is not a bad movie and quite frankly if you have the entire collection this is a welcome addition: who the hell wants another movie similar to all those prior to Casino Royale (II). As to those who did not like the movie, well, change This is not a bad movie and quite frankly if you have the entire collection this is a welcome addition: who the hell wants another movie similar to all those prior to Casino Royale (II). As to those who did not like the movie, well, change is not to everyone's tastes. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
OrsonNov 16, 2008
This Bond sucks as surprisingly as Casino surpassed expectations. The problem? In a first, the action sequences have no rhyme, rythym, or reason. Truly, the first such Bond picture in which these are panful and ineffective to watch. This Bond sucks as surprisingly as Casino surpassed expectations. The problem? In a first, the action sequences have no rhyme, rythym, or reason. Truly, the first such Bond picture in which these are panful and ineffective to watch. Frustrating viewing. he non-action scenes are actually economical gems, but far too brief to enjoy as Bondian. I wish the film would be re-cut before going to DVD. Then I would have something to look forward too (the double DVD release). Instead, I wonder if they even shot enough real action footage to do it. An amazing waste saved only by superior principle actors. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MattB.Nov 16, 2008
Almost as strong as the first, Quantum delivers from every Bond angle. Contrary to many opinions, 007 upholds the swagger and demeanor required. Forster matches Campbell with quality style in his direction. A MUST see for any Bond fan!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MartyL.Nov 16, 2008
Daniel Craig *IS* Jamed Bond. Loved the story, loved the action. Hated the cinematography and editing. TO DIRECTORS - YOU HAVE AMAZING SET DESIGN PEOPLE, YOU DON'T NEED TO SHAKE THE DAMN CAMERA TO HIDE STUFF... Please... Give us camera Daniel Craig *IS* Jamed Bond. Loved the story, loved the action. Hated the cinematography and editing. TO DIRECTORS - YOU HAVE AMAZING SET DESIGN PEOPLE, YOU DON'T NEED TO SHAKE THE DAMN CAMERA TO HIDE STUFF... Please... Give us camera shots that lets us SEE the action instead of blurr it!!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JamesK.Nov 16, 2008
Bond has come to be understood as bullets, bombs and babes... this is where Quantum of Solace goes awry. Yes, it has all that and more, but the movie feels that the plots only purpose is to be the loose threads (read gossamer) that tie all Bond has come to be understood as bullets, bombs and babes... this is where Quantum of Solace goes awry. Yes, it has all that and more, but the movie feels that the plots only purpose is to be the loose threads (read gossamer) that tie all 130min of bullets bombs and babes together. Is it really so dangerous to let actors act that the safer solution is to blow them up? I would hope not. It is a shame that when Casino Royale so perfectly crafts a bond worthy of Connery himself they let it slip right back into the world of unimaginative garbage worthy of Langsby. I only hope that they decide to work a little story and character into the next film. perhaps instead of 90% action 5%sex 5% story, they could strike a more balanced blend. Better luck next time guys Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TDNov 16, 2008
Seriously i am not understanding the all over the place actions scenes, it's really too much for you eyes to handle. Reminds me of the second bourne movie, you just can't follow the scene. I also took a 10 min nap during the movie Seriously i am not understanding the all over the place actions scenes, it's really too much for you eyes to handle. Reminds me of the second bourne movie, you just can't follow the scene. I also took a 10 min nap during the movie which is not normal a good sign. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
WilliamC.Nov 16, 2008
Disappointing! The opening theme song was garbage, and the "Bond" theme music never played until the ending credits.Then there's the film itself...Muddled dialog,poorly edited, and seemingly endless action sequences that looked staged Disappointing! The opening theme song was garbage, and the "Bond" theme music never played until the ending credits.Then there's the film itself...Muddled dialog,poorly edited, and seemingly endless action sequences that looked staged and fake. The story line/plot is only evident 7/8's of the way thru the film.I can't blame the actors here , but just about every part of this film is sub-par.Maybe the weakest,dumbest of all the Bond Films.The Broccoli family laid a egg. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TonyW.Nov 16, 2008
Daniel Craig is excellent as usual as are all the other actors, that is my 7. The director is totally clueless in this installment, the action sequences are big budget but more time is spent showing shaking camera shots than letting us Daniel Craig is excellent as usual as are all the other actors, that is my 7. The director is totally clueless in this installment, the action sequences are big budget but more time is spent showing shaking camera shots than letting us digest what is happening onscreen. I'm astonished that the executives let this movie be released in this form. Maybe a directors cut may be the solution who knows? It's like opening a closet and everything in there is good but it all just fell on your head and gave you a nasty bruise Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BobK.Nov 16, 2008
High on action shots, but the action depicted is not credible human action but rather more like one of those Chinese action films. The premise of the story seems rather unengaging.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KimL.Nov 16, 2008
no plot just shootem up mindless violence. the studio put this drivel together to cash in on the success of casino royal. I am sorry I got taken in. I am so disappointed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
HansH.Nov 16, 2008
Not as phenomenal as Casino Royale, but still extremely entertaining and solid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JoshPNov 16, 2008
Anybody knows what is going on in the world today? Water and the access to it is becoming privatized. As for being the subject of a Bond movie, it may not have the sex appeal of gold, space and just general mass destruction, but I think it Anybody knows what is going on in the world today? Water and the access to it is becoming privatized. As for being the subject of a Bond movie, it may not have the sex appeal of gold, space and just general mass destruction, but I think it was appropriate enough. What I think is disappointing viewers is the lack of back story to it all. Which in all fairness wasn't done very well. What I don't agree with is the anger towards Bond not being Bond. Sure...thats how the books were written, but if writers didn't take liberties or adjust for the modern era, you might as well just read a book instead. Bond is evolving(as he supposed to be newer during this inception) and you have to give him time. Hopefully this movie will wrap the "i'm angry because my girl died" and all the fanboys will have a bit more debonair Bond lines next time they will never use on the ladies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JohnB.Nov 16, 2008
I don't think bond encountered anyone, that was not mi6, in the first 45 min without killing them, awesome. lots of action, a great film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DougN.Nov 16, 2008
Lacks the humor and gadgets of past Bond films. Where is Q, for example? But overall, I liked it. Seems a bit "darker" than any of the past Bond films.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KevinH.Nov 16, 2008
After the sensational CASINO ROYALE, this is a big disappointment. CR had thrilling stuntwork & coherent plot. Here, we're back to BOURNE-like action sequences that are cut so fast and furious that the audience feels nothing while After the sensational CASINO ROYALE, this is a big disappointment. CR had thrilling stuntwork & coherent plot. Here, we're back to BOURNE-like action sequences that are cut so fast and furious that the audience feels nothing while watching it. And I hope that Daniel Craig didn't do any of his own stunts because the way they were filmed in such fragmented short bursts of confusion, he needn't have taken the risks. Worst opening credits ever; worst Bond song ever. The plot is a mess and when Bond finally gets the villain at the end (nots not a spoiler), it all happens off-stage (suddenly the villain is saying, "Well, I've told you everything I know..."). The ending will thrill those who like explosions but if you want to know WHY anyone did what they did, you're out of luck. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
WilliamB.Nov 16, 2008
Daniel Craig is fine, but this film is too uptight! Sometimes the action set-pieces are confusing and incoherent.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AndyM.Nov 16, 2008
I'm no rabid Bond fan, so this review won't be based on Quantum's adherence to the books or how it compares Sean Connery's films. In a nutshell, this movie had no great plot. It tried to be intellectual, but the plot was I'm no rabid Bond fan, so this review won't be based on Quantum's adherence to the books or how it compares Sean Connery's films. In a nutshell, this movie had no great plot. It tried to be intellectual, but the plot was just a mess. So one would think action would make up for all of this, right? Well, there is a LOT of action, but I hate how it was shot. The car chase at the beginning has a camera so frantic and jumpy that it's nearly impossible to decipher what's going on. It gets a little better after this, but not much. The "Bond girl" in this movie got a lot of hype, but she wasn't THAT good looking. The complete and utter lack of sex didn't ruin the movie, but it certainly could've helped things. Oh, and there are no gadgets, save for... touchscreen technology, which is so 2 years ago. So why a 5? It's got some stunning scenes (when you can see what's going on) and Daniel Craig plays a cool Bond, so that helps. This is... a rentable, I think. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
WilliamM.Nov 16, 2008
I have to say, as some one who owns and has watched all the movies and the same goes for all the books. I really liked quantum of solace. I'll agree that it wasn't quite as good as Casino Royale. It was a very lean movie, giving I have to say, as some one who owns and has watched all the movies and the same goes for all the books. I really liked quantum of solace. I'll agree that it wasn't quite as good as Casino Royale. It was a very lean movie, giving you only the bare minimum to know what was still going on. And in keeping the Bondisms to a minimum I think was a good idea for the series. I don't hope it stays completely lean like this. But I also want new people like Forster to bring new perspective to an old hero. And for being so different I think it will stand out as either a favorite or as a hated movie. I don't want to always know what James Bond will say or do, and after experiencing as much Bond as possible you start to want to see a new take. It will never be as tongue in cheek as Roger moore's movies were. Or as Smooth as Connery. But it's a new type of Bond just like every new actor to play him has put him in a new light. I just don't want to put limits on my favorite series of all time, I don't want the writers to have to include bond... James Bond, or that he has to order his martini and have three girls per movie. I love the old Bonds, and I will always watch them often, but I want the news ones to be fresh as well. I'll make my last sentence an example from Ian Fleming himself. He wrote many books with Bond, with quite a few staples, but they were never mandatory, which made their occurrences more special. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JonB.Nov 16, 2008
All the action missing from Casino Royale with about a quarter of the plot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
CoryNov 16, 2008
Stereotypical action movie-200 hundred guys with machine guns shooting at the main character and nobody can hit him! Even worse, there are way too many characters without introductions that confuse you all movie.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JasonR.Nov 16, 2008
Hugely disappointing. No character development. Terrible editing. Wow, they really blew it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
NS.Nov 16, 2008
AWESOME AWESOME AND MORE AWESOME! Definitely check this movie out! That action scenes are wicked!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MichalINov 16, 2008
The movie started good then as it kept going, it became a boring drag and hit the bottom by the time it ended. Even if you watched casino royale and they were only 2 years apart, you still don't feel any emotional connection to the The movie started good then as it kept going, it became a boring drag and hit the bottom by the time it ended. Even if you watched casino royale and they were only 2 years apart, you still don't feel any emotional connection to the characters and their stories unlike what the movie seems like it is trying to accomplish. QoS just doesn't deliver. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JPS.Nov 15, 2008
This moving is worth seeing. Slow at times. Has action. It has a plot that if you use your imagination you can make this an engaging moving. I vote that you see this at a theater-matinee.
0 of 0 users found this helpful