Quantum of Solace (2008) User Reviews

Shoddily directed and horrifically edited, but not a total misfire.

[lnvicta · 7/10 · 25 November 2019]

Quantum was my least favorite Bond movie for quite some time. After the over-ambitious Spectre, I look back at Quantum with fondness due to its simplicity. Not necessarily in its plot, but in its treatment of Bond as a character and his coming to terms with Vesper's death. It's an epilogue to Casino Royale; Bond is hellbent on revenge. It effectively functions as a discount Bourne film. Daniel Craig is great as always, as is Judi Dench and the rest of the supporting cast. The problems with Quantum lie mainly in the directing and editing.

The film opens with a car chase - Bond is being pursued by thugs. Why? We find out later, but the fact that we have no information at the start makes it really hard to care about the action. On top of that, the camera is moving and cutting every half-second so it's nearly impossible to tell what's even happening. This shaky-cam technique is used throughout the film and it's as disorienting as it is annoying.

We're eventually led to our Bond Girl, Camille, who is a unique Bond Girl for having her own character arc (and her own villain), then she leads Bond to our main villain, Dominic Greene - a businessman who wants to buy a pipeline to control Bolivia's water supply. Not exactly a James Bond-level threat, is it? Greene is no match for Bond physically in any sense, but their final confrontation is gratifying if only to see a villain genuinely, and rightly, terrified of Bond. It's great fun to watch Greene yelp as he's swinging an axe around for dear life while his fuel cell-ridden desert hotel explodes around him.

The rest plays out like a standard revenge story. Camille wants revenge against General Medrano for killing her family, and Bond wants revenge for Vesper by going after the organization that was blackmailing her. The writing is stilted and unpolished, but where the movie mainly fails is in its directing. It's pretentious and tonally clashes with the dark character study of Bond that the script is going for. It also doesn't help when the action scenes keep cutting away to a nearby horse race or an opera.

What we have here is a Bond-Bourne hybrid that had the impossible burden of having to follow Casino Royale. However, it's nice to see a gritty Bond adventure for a change. It's not a great Bond movie, but it's engaging enough to be a good time if you're able to look past its flaws.

Fast paced but in trying to cash in on the success of Jason Bourne, Taken n other quick cut editing movies, this one too tried the fast cut editing n ruined the fun.

[Fella_shibby · 7/10 · 18 May 2021]

I first saw this in 2008 with my family in a theatre.

Revisited it recently on a dvd which I own.

This is the twenty-second in the Bond series, a direct sequel to Casino Royale, and the second film to star Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Like its predecessor, this one too doesn't rely on gadgets n cgi n has more chases n fast paced action but in trying to cash in on the success of Jason Bourne, Taken n other action movies, this one tried the fast cut editing which ruined the fun.

In quick cut editing one cannot make out who's who n what is going on.

In this film, Bond seeks revenge for the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd and is assisted by a Bolivian agent Camille Montes, who is coincidentally seeking to avenge the murder of her own family. The trail eventually leads them to Dominic Green, well connected with CIA and a businessman working in reforestation and charity funding for environmental science but helping an exiled General to get back into power, in return for support for his sinister plans along with CIA.

This time Bond faces Craig Mitchell, General Medrano, Dominic Greene n Colonel Carlos.

I miss those olden Bond villain's powerful henchmen.

This time the movie being fast paced n Bond on a vengeance, Bond gets to cool off with Gemma Arterton only.

The pioneer of the balcony/window jump is undisputedly Jackie Chan (Rumble in the Bronx).

Jason Bourne in Bourne Ultimatum copied almost the same jump.

Bond too copied almost the same jump in this movie.

They Forgot the Charm, the Cool, the Exotic, the Erotic, and the Fun

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 8 March 2014]

Incomprehensible at times and Utterly Charmless, the Best one can hope for is that James Bond (Daniel Craig) has put His Feelings to Rest, has Forgiven Vesper, and can now get Right with the World of Espionage and Become the Secret Agent that He was Meant to be.

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

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

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

The Title is one of the Worst for a Bond Film, as is the Opening Trademark Song, and Overall One gets the Feeling that They are in Disdain for the Character's Attributes and the Coolness that made Bond Survive over 20 Movies, 5 Actors, and 5 Decades. Its Acceptable to Modernize a Bit, Tweak a Little, and bring a Slightly New Artistic Touch, but not at the Expense of the Root Material.

It Seems Like the Director and Editors Wanted to be the Stars

[Michael_Elliott · 10 November 2012]

Quantum of Solace (2008)

** (out of 4)

Weak sequel to CASINO ROYALE has Daniel Craig returning for his second stint as James Bond. This time out he must try and stop a man (Mathieu Amalric) from trying to control the water supply in the world. Or something to that effect. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a fair movie on its own but as a Bond film it's a major disappointment on so many levels that it's really not fair to even call it a Bond movie. I mean, everything memorable about a Bond film is missing here from Q to Moneypenny to brains and thrills. This is such a strange movie to watch because it seems that the director (Marc Forster) and editors wanted to be the star of the picture. Just take a look at the opening action sequence, which really has nothing to do with anything else in the film. The scene is very fast, the edits are very quick and it's really impossible to see anything that's going on. This here is okay for an action picture but a Bond picture is supposed to have brains to where the action has the hero having to think his way out of the situation. That doesn't happen in this scene or any of the action scenes that follow and it appears that the director and editors just want to put their style all over the screen no matter how much it harms the picture. But then again, perhaps they did this because they knew the story they were working on seemed incomplete, boring and just not satisfying at all. Craig is perfect as Bond but there's just nothing he can do here. Judy Dench is fine as well but again can't save anything. Olga Kurylenko is pretty forgettable as the sexy woman and Amalric is one of the least interesting villains in the series' history. QUANTUM OF SOLICE is just a downright mess of a film and one that can easily be skipped.

Went to see a Bond movie and got a Jason Bourne interpretation instead!

[zekisadic · 6/10 · 22 October 2008]

After the critically acclaimed and much successful 'Casino Royale' I had hopes that 'Quantum of Solace' could rival this years best movie so far: 'The Dark Knight'. Well... it doesn't even come close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note to the producers of the Bond movies: Now that you played around with Bourne, can we have 007 back for Bond 23, please?

A Potpourri of Vestiges: The Quantum that lacked Solace

[murtaza_mma · 7/10 · 8 November 2008]

Quantum of Solace or Quantum so less, as some of its critics may call it, definitely lacks certain aspects of a traditional Bond movie. It may be eccentric in the sense that it may not be able to titillate the esoteric Bond fans as it may lack their eclectic style and taste but it definitely succeeds in projecting a new Bond for the contemporary world who may not be a coeval of a superhero, who despite being vulnerable has got the killer instinct in him, which is the very defining characteristic of Ian Fleming's larger than life human incarnate. This Bond goes about his business in a fashion which is far more realistic compared to the Bond of the bygone era with an incredible passion and utmost devotion which is nothing but inexorable. Though Casino Royale was the pioneer of this graduation but its Quantum of Solace that consummates it and gives Fleming's agent a mystique which has always eluded him hitherto, an aura which gives him an opportunity to be mortal and hence a chance to qualify to be called a human.

Quantum of Solace is loaded with mind blowing action sequences which makes it a high octane extravaganza. The pace of the movie is such that you hardly get time to breathe freely. The plot though comparatively weaker than its precursor, is still good enough to keep one guessing thereby keeping one at the edge of the seat, all the way through.

The only aspect of the movie which should be under the scanner is its editing which is far from just and at times needless and severely annoying. A bit constraint editing under some meticulous vigilance could have done wonders and would have probably helped it, in its quest to be the best Bond movie of all time.

All being said and given what we have, the movie fails to disappoint the audience and will surely redefine the very prerequisites of an action movie and will definitely serve as a benchmark for the movies in the years to come.

http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/

It's a sequel - and dark as a consequence

[seamanm · 7/10 · 1 November 2008]

Excellent movie, I won't add spoilers, but be aware, it's a sequel to Casino Royale and is necessarily darker in tone. Bond has shut down emotionally as a consequence of Vesper's death and is driven to investigate and, to some extent, avenge her death.

Daniel Craig further extends his takeover of the role, he exudes a sense of sadness with a ruthless drive to move forward with his mission. Mention should be made of Judi Dench - she delivers another excellent performance as M.

Would heartily recommend watching Casino Royale on DVD beforehand if you own it, specifically to prepare and remind yourself of the odd plot point as they certainly will be relevant here.

Bond fans rest assured it's fantastic entertainment. It has to be agreed that it is lacking in old-school quips and innuendo, but in my opinion it is entirely in keeping with Bond's situation in this movie. There are some beautiful locations though, especially in Italy and the Aston looks great, for a little while!

As Bond himself says, "you don't have to worry about me". I'm not worried about the franchise and the third part of this trilogy will be worth looking forward to.

A different kind of Bond

[simonparker1990 · 8/10 · 31 October 2008]

When Casino Royale arrived two years ago I was a very happy person. I was one of what feels like the few people that actually wanted Craig to do well as Bond. I wasn't moaning about him being blonde, I wasn't moaning about the lack of gadgets, I was just happy to see one of my favourite fictional characters back on screen. As many people know I am a huge Bond fan, I have all the movies, I love them all in their unique way, and even if Casino Royale had been a disaster I would have found some enjoyment out of it. Thankfully it wasn't a disaster, it was actually one of the best Bond movies made. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel of Royale, and so I once again had high expectations of it. Perhaps even more so than with Royale, as now I knew Craig is a superb Bond, and I wanted the story to evolve more. Let me start off by saying Solace is not as good as Royale, and for many people that will be a problem, as so many people were expecting an even better movie. While it is an extremely good movie, and a brilliant Bond movie, its just not one of the best and does have a few problems. Still as a Bond fan I still absolutely loved nearly every minute of the movie. It isn't overlong and outstays its welcome like Royale, but neither is it rushed as I feared. The performances are incredibly strong once again and there are some thrilling action sequences thrown in as well.

Daniel Craig once again is very strong as Bond, and unlike what a lot of critics have said, is actually good fun. He can deliver a pun quite well, and he also does the dramatic and seriousness of Bond to perfection. In short he is definitely up there in terms of quality with Sean Connery. He feels a bit more comfortable as Bond this time around, he doesn't have to say the famous line which sadly felt a tad forced at the end of Royale. Instead he does get his fair share of brooding, although his verbal sparring with Gemma Arterton is pretty brilliant. The lead Bond girl this time is played by Olga Kurylenko, who I last saw in the dismal Hit-man movie. Thankfully here she plays a very interesting, although different Bond girl. She doesn't appear much for the first half, and her first sequence seemed more random than interesting. However she does develop quite nicely and by the end she is definitely one of the better Bond girls. Lead villain duties go to Mathieu Amalric. I have to say he was a bit of a disappointment after the brilliant Lechiffre in Royale. Amalric is a slimy villain, and he does put in a good performance, but his villain just isn't all that menacing, and I can see him being one of the easily forgettable Bond baddies. Judi Dench gets an awful lot more screen time this time round, and its all the better for it. M has been rewritten as a superb character, and gets some nice bit of swearing to do. Finally Gemma Arterton is fairly decent as a wasted Bond girl. She has way too little screen time, and far too little to do, however she does shine through, and features in one of the more memorable moments of the movie.

Quantum of Solace story wise is perhaps where the problems begin to slip in. Royale's story was simple and very easy to follow, while Quantum is nowhere near as confusing as people are making it out to be, the movie is a bit overcomplicated for its own good. The villains plan is nowhere near as diabolical as it really could be, and I feel I need to watch the movie again just to get the intricate details of the movie. However as most Bond fans know story is not always a Bond movies strong point, just look at Live and Let Die, Die Another Day. So long as it manages to entertain I am quite happy. Solace thankfully is a brilliantly entertaining movie for the majority. I will admit, the pre-credit sequence is a very big disappointment. I know the stunts were good, and it should have been thrilling, but I felt so oddly bored by it. However once the credits sequence began, to a song I am steadily coming to like, the movie kicked off. The rest of the action sequences were particularly well done, my personal favourite being a bit in an opera house, extremely well edited. Drama wise the movie is very solid, there are some lighter moments to keep people happy, and some amusing one liners, but the movie for the most part is pretty down to earth.

Quantum of Solace as I've said is a great movie, and no doubt many people will love it, although some will be a bit disappointed by it. Either way Craig is still a great Bond, and I cannot wait to see more adventures with him as the lead. Although we could do with a more interesting villain next time round please.

Good, but not good enough

[alexandermussard · 6/10 · 2 November 2008]

I went to see this on Sunday, thinking that it would be the same amazing picture that was Casino Royale. Sadly, it wasn't. Quantum of Solace still has the action, the girl and the explosions that you'd expect, but it is still missing something. By removing the gadgets, the car (only around for the first 5 minutes) and the improvisation that you'd expect a Bond flick to have, it has removed essentially what is a Bond film and what you are left with is the story. And the story was not that thought out. Many moments left me thinking: "what was the point of that?". The film is a lot darker, focusing mainly on the character seeking "revenge" but was not the film I expected it to be. A good watch, better than anything else at the cinema now, but not as good a film as I thought, and I felt a bit disappointed walking out. At most 7/10 but probably 6/10

Stop the directors! Stop the editors! I want to get off!

[Bloomer · 3/10 · 17 November 2008]

This is the first time I ever came out of a Bond film at the cinema thinking, 'I enjoyed almost none of that.' And there was no mystery for me as to why I felt this way. I didn't have to weigh up the other pros and cons (it is not an unsophisticated film) or think far or deeply. I couldn't stand Quantum Of Solace because ninety-five percent of its action sequences are appallingly directed and edited. Endless, wobbly extreme closeups are cut together too rapidly into a meaningless dirge which prohibits you from discerning anything about the nature of the scene.

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

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

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

Quantum Of Solace takes anti-illuminating film-making to new, stupid lows!

The name's Bond, James Bond....or is it?

[The_Void · 8/10 · 2 November 2008]

Martin Campbell's reboot of the James Bond series, Casino Royale, received praise and criticism in equal measures for the fact that it steps away from the James Bond trademarks. This film continues down that path and actually moves things even further away from the Bond tradition. I have to say that I'm not the biggest Bond fan myself and so this didn't bother me too much; but I won't be surprised to find that many Bond fans are not Quantum of Solace fans. As a thriller in its own right, however, the 22nd Bond movie is action packed and entertaining; and certainly a lot better than its title! The film follows on directly from Casino Royale and features James Bond attempting to find revenge for the death of his love who died at the end of the first film. He sets out to get to the bottom of the organisation that was behind her blackmail and intelligence links him to Haiti, where after hooking up with the beautiful and feisty Camille, he is lead to ruthless "charitable" businessman Dominic Greene and discovers a plot by the shady organisation known as 'Quantum' to take control of the world's most important natural resource.

The lack of gadgets is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of differences between the classic Bond film and this reboot. Daniel Craig is a million miles away from the likes of Sean Connery in terms of looks and persona; and his Bond is not even similar in character. While still suave, this James Bond at times comes across more as a highly trained assassin than a secret agent; and only one scene that sees James give British Intelligence the slip in a hotel really reminded me of the resourceful spy seen in the older Bond films. The plot really allows the lead character to show his darker side; but in essence the film is just a collection of stunt sequences and kill scenes; which while undoubtedly entertaining, it not what most people will expect from a Bond film. However, in its own right the film certainly has a lot of positives. The cinematography is gorgeous and this is more than matched by the beautiful locations; which include Italy, Haiti and South America. The best thing about it for me was the casting of Olga Kurylenko as the Bond girl. Again not the typical Bond girl, but she sure is nice to look at! Marc Forster (Finding Neverland) takes the directors chair and is actually more geared up towards providing the action scenes than I thought he would be; but several of them are edited together badly and lack tension as a result. The film attempts to tie itself to the rest of the Bond series by way of a Goldfinger-style death scene; and while it's undoubtedly very cool, it doesn't really fit in with the rest of it and comes off like an afterthought. So to surmise - is The Quantum of Solace an entertaining action thriller? Unquestionably yes. But is it a James Bond movie? Unfortunately not.

Why?

[spirals23 · 6/10 · 3 January 2009]

Bond goes from iconic hero to a poor man's Jason Bourne. What happened to the humour and style? Why is Bond no so serious. Are we really going to buy this deep love for the girl that died stuff? It's teenage drama.

And why is it every action scene in a movie since Saving Private Ryan has to use super fast editing? Sure it is effective and when first seen in SPR was awesome. But its got too fast. Half the time its impossible to know what is going on.

Saying all that this film did have one redeeming feature - it didn't hang around, the plot ticked along (although was still hard to follow) and came in on 90 minutes. Most action films are so long these days they should come with a half time ice cream break.

Poor filming, chopped up action sequences

[unggrabb · 1/10 · 6 November 2008]

Thought this was one of the worst Bond movies ever. Nothing of the magic that made many of the other 007 movies so special was to be found here. The cutting of the film is terrible. masses of 2 second sequences thrown together - for no apparent reason. (as the movie is so boring I found myself counting "one...two...) over and over again. If the action is poor it appears a cheap trick to try to "create interest" by chopping it all up and using 25 cameras to shoot that which has no interest. It just comes across as irritating and silly.

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

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

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

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

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

The previous movie Casino Royale was a good action movie, though it wasn't a Bon movie (either). The Jason Bourne formula works, but Bourne is Not Bond and this is not a Bourne movie, i don't really know how to classify other than "utterly pointless", I couldn't see any redeeming features, no plausbile plot, no interesting characters, no fantastic sceneries, awful title song, no "Bond"-ness - at all

Solid & enjoyable even if a lot of it could have been a lot better than it was

[bob the moo · 11 November 2008]

I was looking forward to seeing this film but I'm not sure I was excited to see it. This had been tempered by some average reviews and also some negative ones that suggested that it was simply, not very good as a film - a lot of which have come from ideas over what a Bond film should be. People praised the "reboot" but apparently QOS is unacceptable? I do not think that the Bond films cannot change it up, but if they tried to do a Bond that was a romantic comedy I would be the first to come to this site complaining about "what have they done to Bond?" so I'm not totally for change.

QOS is not that much of a step away from the Bond tradition and it is just more of an action movie than a Bond movie. Yes I thought it was strange that the traditional opening was saved for the end of the film but the absence of gadgets, innuendo, comedy etc didn't bother me one bit – these were what I hated in Die Another Day in particular. Some have had the issue that QOS follows directly on from the previous film and that the narrative flows directly rather than restarting with a new threat. I liked this though as it cuts away the need to establish everything fresh and instead we get the development of the Quantum organisation - a thread that is good for several more films I suspect. Others have complained that the story made no sense (Kermode in particular went on about how little sense it made) - personally I didn't struggle with the overall flow. The specifics of some scenes or characters perhaps were lost on me, but this was mainly because the film didn't spoon feed me - and I'd rather it made me think. It is not a traditional Bond story though but it worked and those scoffing about the exploitation of one country to make money and get power as a trivial plot by the series standards are not seeing this as a part of a bigger, powerful organisation.

Where the "story" side of the film falls down is in the development of the character as Bond – it could have been any character doing the running and jumping. Don't make me wrong, it is not terrible but the title credits made me hope for more. You see, the names I recognised that made me think something would click were the following - Daniel Craig (arguably the best "actor" to play Bond), Paul Haggis (Oscar winning writer - and not for action films but for films where story, script and characters were the whole show), Marc Forster (Kite Runner and Monster's Ball - again, more about characters and material than action). I wasn't looking for QOS to be a no-action, all character affair but I did hope that these talents could do great things with the new, darker character of Bond. But they don't. Yes we have the general continuation of this tough, violent man driven by some twisted sort of vengeful love but it makes very little of it. The scenes between the action do well enough to built the story and connect the action but ultimately they are only "the bits between the action". The cast are still good - but just feel like more was possible. Craig is a good Bond, rough, fit and attractive with dark menace in his very heart. Amalric may not be a typical Bond super-villain but that was the point. Kurylenko is stunning and fits the modern Bond girl role well. Dench does what she does with quality but Arterton offers nothing but a clumsy Goldfinger reference while Jeffrey Wright's performance suggests an interesting character that the script never produces. Giannini's character produces a moment of emotional and superficial coldness in Bond that is good but otherwise I could have done with him or his character.

The action is what the film is about and, while enough to entertain, is never as thrilling or engaging as it should be. This is a problem and it's a problem that Bond struggles to solve - the Bourne problem. I know some people hate rapid editing and tight shots on principle because it causes motion sickness or "you can't see what's happening" but, done well (as in Bourne) it can draw the audience into action and make it a lot more intense. However, it is not something that happens in the editing room alone. For Bourne this approach compliments and is complimented by the choreography of the action and also the filming style. With Bond it feels at times like this style is an afterthought - some of the action scenes work with it but in the majority it only detracts from the scene. It is still noisy enough to do the job and I do like the brutal edge the scenes have but the editing was not a good call here. Otherwise the action is "good", great locations, fast cars, big explosions - just a shame that nothing had me on the edge of my seat.

QOS is different from the traditional, Christmas-afternoon-telly Bond; but clearing away a lot of clutter doesn't bother me as much as it has some viewers. The film works well as a solid action movie but falls short of being anything special. It is so conscious of Bourne that, in imitating aspects of that film, the makers forget to see if it works with what they are doing. The lack of depth and development in the character is also a disappointment given the talent involved in key areas. It is still a solid and enjoyable film that is worth seeing even if it is hard to ignore that most of it could and should have been better than it is.

Almost unwatchable...

[nikolaospap-94049 · 6/10 · 22 November 2020]

Decent story, good pacing but those action scenes sure make you dizzy with all the cuts going on.

Good But Should Have Been Better

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 2 November 2008]

There had been some very Luke warm reviews of QOS when it was released last week . Perhaps one of the reasons being that CASINO ROYALE was so good that anything else after it would disappoint . So I popped in to the cinema to make up my own mind

Most of the best aspects remain from CASINO ROYALE . Daneil Craig if not the best Bond ever is certainly the best actor to have played him and his interaction with Judi Dench's M has plenty of on screen chemistry . Mathieu Amalric's villain Dominic Greene follows in the tradition of the Craig era Bond baddies in that he's not a megalomaniac sitting in a bunker trying to destroy the world , just a very greedy man wanting to make lots of money and killing anyone in stands in the way of his corporation . One can't help thinking that maybe a little more screen time could have been dedicated to character interaction

There are a few problems . As David Mahmet once said " You believe anything in film if you don't have reason to disbelieve it " so little bits like characters being able to see in an underground cave devoid of any light are something you may forgive down to cinematic conventions . There's also an assassin who looks like Rowan Atkinson in THE BLACK ADDER complete with an identical hairstyle ! I also wished the producers had a little more courage in keeping Greene as a self appointed self righteous environmentalist guardian right up to the end . If you've seen THE EIGER SANCTION you'll know where the screenwriters got Greene's fate from

Minor flaws that you can forgive . What is impossible to forgive however is some quite atrocious editing in the action scenes where everything is so " blink and you'll miss it " What makes it even worse is that director Marc Forster has some great visual ideas , especially a shoot out in a restaurant where the only sound heard on screen is the non diegetic sound of an opera but all this is bloody ruined by subliminal editing where shot lengths are micro seconds ! You'll have to see the movie to find out how terrible this looks . In fact a large per centage of the movie feels like it ended up on the cutting room floor

There's two ways of looking at this . One is the positive opinion in that QOS is infinitely better than some of the crap we saw under the Bond banner in the 70s and 80s , perhaps even better than some of the lesser Brosnan films . That is the correct opinion . The negative opinion is that QOS is ultimately disappointing in many ways and should have been better . Unfortunately that is also the correct opinion

Quorum of Stinkus

[dunmore_ego · 6/10 · 6 December 2008]

Stunt, stunt, stunt, crash. Stunt, stunt, stunt, crash. Explosion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just like the last film, Bond's healing abilities are like Wolverine: every little face cut - healed by the next scene. In CASINO ROYALE, he plonked Vesper Lynn mere days after his mandacious torture - can the franchise heal itself as quickly as Wolverine Bond's ballsac?

Why build up a "tent pole" and then knock it down?

[dcold · 6/10 · 15 November 2008]

I watched this new Bond with interest while I was in the theater (mostly because of Craig and Dench) but the longer I'm out, the more I hate it. This was not a Bond movie. Why spend over 40 years building a franchise and then knock it's feet out from under it. There is too much to comment on in full paragraphs so here's the list:

Bond is not Wolverine or Terminator. The things that happened to Bond in this movie would kill any man...let's keep it real.

Along those lines: No man can stay awake for that long and not start hallucinating and have walking sleep moments (which could have been interesting)

NO MORE SHAKY CAM! Bond fight scenes should be thrilling, not a blur of skin, metal and shattering glass. Why spend all that money setting up shots and then not let the audience see it?

Bond would not dump a fellow agent/friend in a dumpster. At least he could have made a funeral pyre out of it.

Why oh why do we have soooo many bad guys/enemies/sub-plots? Bolivian dictators, French mercenaries, Quantum group(Inc.)head honchos, knife wielding geologists?, turn-coat CIA agents, turn-coat British agents, bad boyfriends?, bad fathers (that still have to be avenged???), Alpha Romero driving bad guys, fighter plane pilots, etc. etc.

Why would the agency send a secretary to stop one of their wildest agents from leaving town? And how did that same secretary have time to write a "run" note when she was so busy dying?

Why was this mousy French guy any match for Bond? He was wearing freaking loafers!

Why would Bond just sit there in a burning room contemplating suicide when he just ran and jumped through flames to get there?

Why can't Bolivians trace the water back and take out the dam with sledgehammers?

Couldn't the plot had a little more dastardly...like the mercenary was going to poison the world's drinking water so his supply would become liquid gold? Not just dry up a region in Bolivia so you can charge "twice as much" as the dictator was paying before???

Oh, well.

Let's get back to the old Bond movies. I actually don't mind Craig as Bond but these bad plots and blurry direction are ruining my favorite movie treat.

So cool

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 8/10 · 16 November 2008]

After seeing Casino Royale a few months ago, I realized something, there is a big re-imagining of the James Bond series. James Bond is now more serious, a little darker, and has a lot more edge. I grew up with the 007 films, my dad and I watched them together all the time, they were always a blast to watch. Now I'm grown up and Daniel Craig is the new James Bond and he is so cool and smooth, he's taken on a very charismatic Bond, he'd make Sean Connery proud. Quantum of Solace is the very first James Bond movie that is actually a sequel, it continues right where Casino Royale took off, so there is no off set when it comes to the story. The action is jam packed, I loved a lot of the action/fight scenes incredibly, but I'd say it's a notch below Casio Royale since the director didn't seem to know how to edit well in those sequences, because I don't know about you, but I couldn't tell what was going on or who was getting hit. But the story is a great continence to Casino Royale.

Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M interrogate Mr White who reveals the organization which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined. Forensic intelligence links an Mi6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille, a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene, a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organization.

Quantum of Solace is completely worth the watch, it was a lot of fun, it has it's small flaws. I think the editing just could have been a little better, like I said, some scenes go so fast that you can barely keep your head on from turning side by side. Daniel Craig is a great Bond, he is still incredibly cool to watch. However, Olga Kurylenko, pretty girl, but not exactly the most interesting "Bond Girl", nothing about her really stood out to me, so I hope they'll do better the next film. However, I did enjoy Quantum of Solace, it's a great action film and an excellent addition to the Bond series.

8/10

James Bond has lost his identity

[joeormerod · 6/10 · 1 November 2008]

Why do people love bond films so much? The answer is simple, it's because they differ from the other action films not by the content of the action but by the character and style of the films. If the bond films don't have this character and style then they don't differ from the masses and become bland meaning we have no reason to love bonds unique character. Unfortunately this is exactly what has happened in Quantum of Solace.

I believe Bond has a formula and every film should contain in my view, Q, the gadgets, the car, the sayings ''Bond, James Bond'' and ''vodka martini shaken not stirred'', the girls, the ruthless bad guys etc. As this formula is what gives bond his identity.

Apparently these characteristicts which make bond so unique were left out of this film as they are apparently too dated. But surely the director Marc Forster should have stepped up to the challenge.

This film was very disappointing and bond has been stripped of personality by Marc Foster making him a bland and undistinguishable from Bourne etc etc…..

Also the camera work was very annoying.

We loved Moneypenny, Q and M. Why did you take it all away?

[AccessCardRequired · 1/10 · 12 November 2008]

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. and then you even dare to take away the gun barrel montage in the beginning, and no more "Bond, James Bond. Are you people mental?

Another Strong Story Ruined by Unwatchable Action Sequences

[bradley-trent · 8/10 · 3 September 2020]

The rebooted Bond is much more of a human being than the icy hatchet-man of the previous iterations, and I like that. It brings the character up a notch on the scale of realism. But his evolution as a person and an agent, first denying and then finally releasing his grief over the death of a loved one from Casino Royale, the prequel, is marred by the shaky-camera, too-tight-focus, seizure-inducing-shot-cut rate that plagued too many action movies of the first decade of this century. Thankfully, that Paul Greengrass-style, nausea-inducing action shooting style is slowly waning. If you enjoy Bond as a character -- perhaps as presented in the original Ian Fleming writings -- just grit your teeth and squint through the sports, like I did. Then go watch Casino again for a proper dose of properly-filmed action.

Quantum of Solace

[artynewbold · 6/10 · 1 November 2008]

Having been so impressed with Casino Royale, which I felt was a film that stood on its own without the Bond brand protection, I was hoping for, and expecting a film of a similar quality.

I felt that the first half of the film wandered through one action scene to the next, and for the first time in a long time, found myself shuffling in my seat and frankly a little bored.

I accept that this was always going to be a different "type" of film from Casino Royale in that the action scenes were supposed to address the anger built up in Bond, yet I feel that it genuinely focused too much on technology and action sequences, bearing little thought to the deeper inner demons that I enjoyed so much in the previous film.

Having said all this, there were flashes of utter brilliance; for example the end of the Opera scene, which was more like something of a Scorcese epic - it made it feel like a proper grown up film that deserved recognition in its on right - and then it stuttered back to the overall slow and dialogue sparse plot.

The nails in the coffin for me were the basic, avoidable continuity errors right at the start of the film (Craig's position in Aston and Craig's collar in talks with M). All the money thrown at this film and it lacked simple editing and thought.

Overall, an unfortunately shallow film (with echoes of Licence to Kill) which will hopefully provide a clear link and purpose to Craig's third Bond film. This film is worth a watch (probably only once), but make sure you book a very comfy seat, and don't expect too much of it.

Quantum Of Solace

[fig00003 · 5/10 · 1 November 2008]

This is my first review in IMDb (my first port-of-call for movie opinions) and unfortunately it's simply a reaction to what has been, this morning, a disappointing experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The theme song isn't too good either, and just like the film it gets a tad messy at times. Get Chris Cornell back for the next one.

Something is not quite right with this latest Bond offering

[Gordon-11 · 6 November 2008]

This film is about James Bond cracking down a multi-national corporation that works with dictators to get a share of precious natural resources.

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

There is a lot of action and adrenaline in the film, but the plot seems not to have a focus. Nor does it make sense either, as it feels like an all-action-no-information film. All Bond does is to run around the globe after his target, and viewers are left to wonder how he made it. I don't find myself caring for the plot or the characters. I don't know why this happens, but something is not right with the film and I don't know what.