One and Only Quantum of Solace (James Bond) review thread!

[Sierra Disc]

OK, the movie's nearly here (and out in some countries) -- let's focus on reviews and your views in this new thread rather than the one that started in 2007!

<a href="http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/504060-james-bond-22-news-rumors-castings-etc-includes-trailer-thread.htmll">(Previous thread on pre-release info)</a>

Can't wait to see this myself, although I've heard a few mixed reviews....

[Rated_R_Outlaw]

ill probally catch it as a double feature with Twilight in a week or so. Not that interested

[scott1598]

Movie:
"Quantum of Solace" (Starring: Daniel Craig, Mathieu Amalric, Olga Kurylenko, Judi Dench)

Release Date:
11/14/2008

Rating:
PG-13

Rotten Tomatoes Reviews:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/quantum_of_solace/
Fresh:64 Rotten:28 (70% as of 11/13/08)

Info:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/

Trailer:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/quantumofsolace/

Poster Art:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/scott1598/quantumofsolace_l200808011802.jpg

[fumanstan]

I hadn't been tracking the tomato meter on this, but glad the reviews are pretty positive. I won't get to see this til next Thursday, but at least it's free for work :p

[PopcornTreeCt]

Where are there 2 reviews thread then?

[scott1598]

"Casino Royale" is one of my most viewed movies of the past few years and i can't wait for this one. i wish there was a little more girth to the running time, but beggars can't be choosers.

[Mountain Biker]

Uh, there was a reviews thread started yesterday

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/543520-one-only-quantum-solace-james-bond-review-thread.html

[Mountain Biker]

^^ Good question.

Looking forward to seeing this on Friday.

[MaxMFP]

I've seen it three times now(the second two only because I was with friends who didn't.)


It's a solid 7/10 film. I hope this is the end of this whole "Dark James Bond re-imagining" phase, though.

Just because your film is "dark" doesn't mean it's better.



I am ready to see more of the "James Bond" back in James Bond.

[MaxMFP]

From the other:


I've seen it three times now(the second two only because I was with friends who didn't.)


It's a solid 7/10 film. I hope this is the end of this whole "Dark James Bond re-imagining" phase, though.

Just because your film is "dark" doesn't mean it's better.



I am ready to see more of the "James Bond" back in James Bond.

[RichC2]

Ebert gave it a 2 out of 4 (he gave Casino Royale a 4 out of 4), it's apparently the first negative bond review since Living Daylights.

[scott1598]

From the other:


I've seen it three times now(the second two only because I was with friends who didn't.)


It's a solid 7/10 film. I hope this is the end of this whole "Dark James Bond re-imagining" phase, though.

Just because your film is "dark" doesn't mean it's better.



I am ready to see more of the "James Bond" back in James Bond.

i thought this was a setup to a part III in the trilogy? that is what i heard anyway.

[RocShemp]

I really enjoyed it. The negative reviews be damned. And I'm glad that (except for the very over-the-top freefall sequence) Bond was not superhuman (as an earlier review in the other thread suggested) and actually took a pounding in this movie while giving as good as he got.

I did like the openning title sequence overall but the transition to it was very sloppy. The same with the gunbarrel sequence which felt like a complete afterthought. Other than that, I'd gladly place this next to my copy of Casino Royale.

And how I adore Olga Kurylenko! :drool:

[scott1598]

RT down to 70% compared to "Casino Royale" final tally at 94%.

[fumanstan]

Where are there 2 reviews thread then?

Where? Right here! Although this one was posted first so the other one should be deleted or merged.

[Seantn]

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/543520-one-only-quantum-solace-james-bond-review-thread.html

[The Bus]

The other one has a better / easier to search for title though.

[jeffkjoe]

Daniel Craig IS Ian Fleming's James Bond 007

[jeffkjoe]

I heard the next Daniel Craig movie takes place in outer space and has Herve Villachiaze as the henchman and Jill St. John as the girl.

[scott1598]

the big 'O' gives it a "rent it": http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35416/quantum-of-solace/

[The O]

the big 'O' gives it a "rent it": http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35416/quantum-of-solace/

I was fairly surprised to see all the positive reviews for this film out there. Then I started reading them, and the praise isn’t exactly confident.

I hope you lovely folk of the movie forum have more fun with the film than I did.

[Solid Snake PAC]

Would it better if it was treated as say...an Action film cuz that's what it feels like. I mean it's a Bond film but from the reviews it sounds like a good action film, not a good Bond film. Does that make any sense?

[Ranger]

I read the plot summary at wiki and the story seemed pretty good.

I will try to watch it before Thanksgiving.

[RoboDad]

Would it better if it was treated as say...an Action film cuz that's what it feels like. I mean it's a Bond film but from the reviews it sounds like a good action film, not a good Bond film. Does that make any sense?
That sums up my thoughts perfectly. Ironically, this is the first Bond movie that I'm not really excited to go see in over 15 years (well, since the release of the second Dalton film), but my wife is excited this time (I think she's got a crush on Daniel Craig, go figure ;)), so we'll be there tomorrow night.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Where? Right here! Although this one was posted first so the other one should be deleted or merged.

Damn... I never think before I post.

[RoboDad]

Daniel Craig IS Ian Fleming's James Bond 007

That may be true, but what most people have come to know and love over the past 40 years is Cubby Broccoli's version of Mr Fleming's character.

[wendersfan]

OK, merged.

I was out celebrating a bit last night. :D

[Geofferson]

I saw it last night -- better than what I expected (though not by much). My biggest gripe: a terrible villain (agree with DVDTalk review above).

The highlight for me was the opera sequence -- tense throughout and well-staged.

Overall though, as a follow-up to Casino Royale, it is a letdown.

[Suprmallet]

I enjoyed the film quite a bit. Yes, Marc Forster was an odd and not entirely satisfying choice to direct, but Quantum of Solace is still better than any of the Roger Moore films or any of the Brosnan flicks outside of Goldeneye.

My biggest gripes are: 1. Greene's evil plot is poorly defined and not very menacing and 2. The film mostly feels like it exists to tie up the loose ends of Casino Royale. My second gripe probably exists becaus of the first; without an interesting scheme by the current villain, all we have to worry about are the consequences of the actions from the past movie.

Without Martin Campbell coming back, I immediately dialed down my expectations. Hell, the last time I can think of two or more genuinely great Bond films appearing back to back was during the Connery days, so I really wasn't expecting this one to match or exceed Casino Royale. It doesn't, but I still enjoy this new Bond and am hopeful that the next one will be a more epic and classical Bond affair.

Edit: And one other thing, by the way this movie is constructed, it seems like MI6 consists only of Bond, M, and an analyst. Guess the tight economy hit British intelligence as well. ;)

[scott1598]

OK, merged.

I was out celebrating a bit last night. :D

can we at least get the better poll options in this one? i would really like a better scale than Quantum of Awesomness or Quantum of Suckness.

[Dr Mabuse]

I enjoyed it.

Craig is the best Bond.

One thing I would criticize is they obviously wanted to try and emulate the Oscar winning, and really incredible editing from the third 'Bourne' film, but they didn't pull it off nearly as well. This director can't run in that pack.

I liked The Opera too.

[PopcornTreeCt]

I liked it. It wasn't even close to Casino Royale but it was very enjoyable. I know many probably didn't care for the villain but I liked him quite a bit more than the last guy. Like a lot of Bond villains lately, he was a weasel. But he knew his role and played it well.

The Opera scene was probably my favorite scene. I thought it was edited pretty well.

Overall, it was pretty good.

[Giantrobo]

I heard the next Daniel Craig movie takes place in outer space and has Herve Villachiaze as the henchman and Jill St. John as the girl.

Well, Daniel Craig was on Jimmy Kimmel last night and he said the there may be more "gadgets" in the next Bond film. I gotta be honest, this kinda bothered me. :(

[Suprmallet]

I thought the goal of this reboot was to start Bond off as green but gritty, then develop him into the suave, sophisticated, and experienced agent we know and love. So it would make sense that as we get further away from Casino Royale, we'd see more of the Bond trademarks fall into place, and that included gadgets. I think as long as we stay away from invisible cars, we'll probably be okay.

[Giantrobo]

I thought the goal of this reboot was to start Bond off as green but gritty, then develop him into the suave, sophisticated, and experienced agent we know and love. So it would make sense that as we get further away from Casino Royale, we'd see more of the Bond trademarks fall into place, and that included gadgets. I think as long as we stay away from invisible cars, we'll probably be okay.

Sure.

I guess my concern is it <i>will</i> go over the top as Craig gets more Bond Films under his belt. I don't mind "gadgets" if they're practical, somewhat limited as far as their presence, and have some base in reality. But frankly, I would prefer to not see them.

I guess I'll go back to skipping Bond films when he starts getting all "gadgeted up" and starts spitting out lame one liners every 5 minute.

[Suprmallet]

Well, if QoS is anything to go by, it'll be a long time before we're at that point. This movie had no gadgets other than phones, and maybe two one-liners in the whole thing.

[Giantrobo]

Well, if QoS is anything to go by, it'll be a long time before we're at that point. This movie had no gadgets other than phones, and maybe two one-liners in the whole thing.

Sounds good. Now that I think about it , he had some one liners in CR but for some reason they didn't come across as corny. I guess I should have remembered that since I've seen CR like 10 or 15 times.

[PopcornTreeCt]

"Take her...she's sea sick"

I missed the Bond one-liners in this film.

[jeffkjoe]

How about:

Bond: "That's not nice!" after being kicked out of the girl's car.

[RoboDad]

Sounds good. Now that I think about it , he had some one liners in CR but for some reason they didn't come across as corny. I guess I should have remembered that since I've seen CR like 10 or 15 times.

From your comments, I take it that you didn't care for Goldfinger (which is widely regarded as the best Bond film ever). It had all of the elements you dislike - a babe with a cheesy double-entendre name, "corny" one-liners, (moderately) far-fetched gadgets, and an over-the-top villain, complete with an equally over-the-top henchman (who was completely "busted" by the Mythbusters team, BTW ;)).

I'm not saying that Moonraker is a great Bond film by any stretch, but to eliminate all of the elements I mentioned above makes one wonder, why bother calling it a Bond film at all? There are plenty of good, generic action flicks out there. Bond always offered something more. But with this film, even the reviews I've read that were fairly positive were quick to admit that the "Bond-as-Bourne" critics are justified in their complaints.

[Daytripper]

Well, I enjoyed it. No one will ever rate this higher than "Casino Royale". How could it be better? Those were some big shoes to match. And, yes, Marc Forster was a truly odd choice for this project. And I love his films. But he's never done anything remotely close to this before. Still, hats off to the guy. The action scenes were superb. I also liked that Judie Dench had more scenes in this film. She's always great. And the lead actress is beautiful. Overall, I'd give it an 8/10.

[nmr1723]

Solid movie. Liked CR better...but I still enjoyed QoS immensely. Some awkward dialogue but Craig is great as the new hard-ass Bond. Looking forward to seeing/hearing this on Blu-ray.

I'll go with 8/10 with CR getting a 9. I either like the movies or hate them these days and this passed the test.

[Dr Mabuse]

I forgot to mention, I really liked the "we have people everywhere" scene.

That was done very well. You have an idea of who is in control, and things are proceeding, the scene is progressing in a fairly typical fashion, and then...

[RocShemp]

forgot to mention, I really liked the "we have people everywhere" scene.

That was done very well. You have an idea of who is in control, and things are proceeding, the scene is progressing in a fairly typical fashion, and then...


I loved that scene as well. :up: Anyone else think that Mr. WHite will turn out ot be this series' Blofeld?

Any audience member who can make sense of the monochromatic mayhem underneath all the breakneck cutting deserves a medal and a signed Daniel Craig photo.
So where's my medal and signed Daniel Craig photo? :mad:

[The O]

So where's my medal and signed Daniel Craig photo? :mad:

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u357/notmoore/Craig.jpg

[mdc3000]

Marc Forster can't shoot action for shit. The action scenes tried to emulate the tight, tense and fast pace of the Bourne series, but YOU COULD HARDLY TELL WHAT WAS HAPPENING because there were no LONG SHOTS... We never get the geography of the action sequences, therefore the stuff that is supposed to thrill and be exciting feels like no big deal.

I really think the action scenes were a HUGE letdown - they are great in concept and a few shots (like in the trailer) really WOW you, but as a whole, they just DON'T WORK. They're confusing, muddled and in desperate need of wider shots where we can see what is happening.

The cast does what they can, but we never get invested in Olga's character (hell, I don't even recall her name and I just saw it 20 minutes ago), I feel like they must have cut some character development stuff to quicken the pace, which felt sluggish anyhow. Greene and Quantum are shitty villains and the last scene was predictable and a letdown.... don't give us a rough, no holds barred James Bond only to cut his balls off in the last scene... Certainly not the worst Bond movie, but after Casino Royale, this is a HUGE disappointment. Thank God Forster isn't back for the next one...maybe they can get a director who knows how to make action sequences EXCITING and raise the stakes so we actually feel a sense of danger and urgency...or at the very least, give us something FUN.

FUCK.

[wm lopez]

Ebert gave it a 2 out of 4 (he gave Casino Royale a 4 out of 4), it's apparently the first negative bond review since Living Daylights. Not from Ebert?

[RocShemp]

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u357/notmoore/Craig.jpg
:wub:

[FangsFirst]

Ebert gave it a 2 out of 4 (he gave Casino Royale a 4 out of 4), it's apparently the first negative bond review since Living Daylights.

And his review is contradictory and filled with incorrect statements :S

the big 'O' gives it a "rent it": http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35416/quantum-of-solace/


I was wondering where my medal and signed photo were, too :D

In general, I quite liked it. But I never liked the original Bond, so take that as you will. I get the feeling jeffkjoe is right from what I've read--this is Bond as Fleming envisioned him.

[RocShemp]

I was wondering where my medal and signed photo were, too :D


I'm happy, I got my signed picture. :) But I'm still waiting on my medal. :(

[Mr. Cinema]

Marc Forster can't shoot action for shit. The action scenes tried to emulate the tight, tense and fast pace of the Bourne series, but YOU COULD HARDLY TELL WHAT WAS HAPPENING because there were no LONG SHOTS... We never get the geography of the action sequences, therefore the stuff that is supposed to thrill and be exciting feels like no big deal.

I really think the action scenes were a HUGE letdown - they are great in concept and a few shots (like in the trailer) really WOW you, but as a whole, they just DON'T WORK. They're confusing, muddled and in desperate need of wider shots where we can see what is happening.

The cast does what they can, but we never get invested in Olga's character (hell, I don't even recall her name and I just saw it 20 minutes ago), I feel like they must have cut some character development stuff to quicken the pace, which felt sluggish anyhow. Greene and Quantum are shitty villains and the last scene was predictable and a letdown.... don't give us a rough, no holds barred James Bond only to cut his balls off in the last scene... Certainly not the worst Bond movie, but after Casino Royale, this is a HUGE disappointment. Thank God Forster isn't back for the next one...maybe they can get a director who knows how to make action sequences EXCITING and raise the stakes so we actually feel a sense of danger and urgency...or at the very least, give us something FUN.

FUCK.
x1000 on the action scenes. I'm sick and tired of this "herky jerky" camera bullshit. Who likes that? You can't tell what's happening on screen.

I liked most of the non-action scenes and the opera sequence was terrific. But Casino Royale is soooo much better.

[brianluvdvd]

Marc Forster can't shoot action for shit. The action scenes tried to emulate the tight, tense and fast pace of the Bourne series, but YOU COULD HARDLY TELL WHAT WAS HAPPENING because there were no LONG SHOTS... We never get the geography of the action sequences, therefore the stuff that is supposed to thrill and be exciting feels like no big deal.

I really think the action scenes were a HUGE letdown - they are great in concept and a few shots (like in the trailer) really WOW you, but as a whole, they just DON'T WORK. They're confusing, muddled and in desperate need of wider shots where we can see what is happening.

The cast does what they can, but we never get invested in Olga's character (hell, I don't even recall her name and I just saw it 20 minutes ago), I feel like they must have cut some character development stuff to quicken the pace, which felt sluggish anyhow. Greene and Quantum are shitty villains and the last scene was predictable and a letdown.... don't give us a rough, no holds barred James Bond only to cut his balls off in the last scene... Certainly not the worst Bond movie, but after Casino Royale, this is a HUGE disappointment. Thank God Forster isn't back for the next one...maybe they can get a director who knows how to make action sequences EXCITING and raise the stakes so we actually feel a sense of danger and urgency...or at the very least, give us something FUN.

FUCK.

Wow...this is almost everything I was going to type.

Almost everything about this movie is wrong in relation to James Bond movies. And if you think this is Ian Fleming's version of Bond, you obviously haven't read any of his books.

The action scenes are total shit. All of them. Who the fuck edited this movie? They are all shot so close-up, with the jerky camera and lightning fast cuts that you can't even tell what the fuck is going on. Awful. And this was EVERY action scene. Hell, the Bourne movies pull back some and let you at least see what the fuck is going on. I know they want to "modernize" the franchise but even the Transporter movies let you enjoy the action scenes.

The opening title sequence sucked. Granted the theme song was pure ass but you could have at least thrown a few nekked girls in the background to remind us this is supposed to be a JB film. Craig doing the exact same shadow pose does not a JB title sequence make. One girl made out of sand doesn't cut it. Extremely dull. But again...it could just be the song. It is by far one of the worst in the JB catalog.

Fuck Judi Dench as M. I hated when they originally cast her and hate her even more now. M doesn't go to crime scenes and investigate shit. He sits at his desk and has his people do that crap for him. He doesn't get kidnapped, he doesn't whine. He barks orders and keeps 007 in his place. 007 doesn't need a fucking mommy...he needs his boss back. I am sick of this shit.

The villain is super lame. I know...007 has faced his share of lame villains in the past but I thought they could at least come up with something better than an eco-water-bearing hotel owner??? What the fuck? And why is 007 there in the first place? Is it revenge? Is it to help the girl get revenge? Is it to help get water to the people? Real estate? Who knows with this convoluted plot.

I don't want snappy one-liners every few seconds but Jesus, Connery shits better one-liners in his Depends now than the few written for Craig. And Craig's delivery of the meager few are pretty terrible. He has no sense of timing with them and they just come out flat and show how lame they are. There was only one decent chuckle and it actually came from M regarding the dead-end comment.

The Bond girl. Oh yeah...who cares? Bond doesn't seem to want to fuck her so why should we? Tell me again why she's in the movie?

The bright spots which are few and far between: Craig still makes an excellent Bond but he is being shit on by the writing as Brosnan was. Find a happy medium. You don't have to have invisible cars but at least give us some realistic cool technology that may or may not be real. This one had cell phones and you can also draw pretty pictures of secret intel on the secretary's desk or wall. Holy cow! Impressive!

Use Craig's strengths as a quiet but cool strongman but let the guy have fun too. Say what you want about Roger Moore but the one thing I always liked about his movies was: Pussy first. Bad guys second. Done. And he winked at the camera from time to time to let you know he was having a blast and you were in on the fun. They were fun movies. Not the best all the time but at least fun to watch with fantastic stunts that were filmed far enough back for you to see the action and realize that even though it was a stunt man doing it, it was still a REAL stunt. you kids marvel at that for awhile!

And Bond producers: Use all the money you made on the last several movies to hire some decent screenwriters. I felt like I did when I watched the newest Indiana Jones movie: "All that time and money and this is the best script/story they could come up with? What the hell?"

There really wasn't much good about this movie as it was just your average action flick. This was not a James Bond movie. If you took out the parts where he was called 007, you would have thought you were watching Action Night on Showtime.

The famous James Bond theme was nowhere to be found in the film as well. Yeah, a couple of times it was subtle and barely included but hey, you own it...why not use it? Remember the good old days when talented composers could create new and beautiful music (John Barry...where are you?) that had a heart, was catchy, didn't sound like every other generic action score, and could interweave the theme song and the James Bond theme in new and interesting ways throughout the picture? Oh yeah...you can't because fucking David Arnold has been slowly killing the movies with his bland scores that keep getting worse with every consecutive Bond film he does. Get a new composer, please.

This new Bond already needs a reboot. I am just hoping that they put the barrel shot at the end of the film to say that this is the closing of the chapter of the rough around the edges Bond and that the suave, sophisticated, girl-chasing fun loving Bond will be back in the next series. And maybe it means a new M, composer, writer, editor, and director may be on the horizon. One can dream.

My rating: **1/2 out of *****

[eXcentris]

Craig is an excellent Bond, but he is not THE Bond as envisionned by Fleming, certainly not physically. In fact none of the actors who have played Bond can claim to be the ultimate Bond. Flemming's Bond was portrayed as tough, but human. Someone who made mistakes and who could feel pain. This side of Bond was never really explored until Craig. However, Bond was mean't to be tough, not brutish or animalistic as he was portrayed in Casino Royale. This is evident in the book, when he explains to Mathis how he obtained his '00' credentials.

My favorite Bond is still Connery, but while most Moore Bond films suck, there's one thing he could do better than Connery, and that's deliver one-liners. His timing, as suggested above, was much better than Connery's.

[thelwig14]

I just hope everyone who complains about the action scene edits are consistent and are equally disgusted with the Bourne movies and Nolan's Batman. Those movies are just as shaky cam quick cuts. If you don't agree, watch them again.

[NiCK Crush]

i thought it was incredibly entertaining.

[Patman]

I will have to side with the "disappointed" crowd on QoS. I really like Marc Forster as a director, but he's totally wrong for the Bond franchise. He makes the mistake of amping up the chase scenes, but forgetting that these characters are human beings, not just time-fillers for an uninteresting thread-bare plot. There are quite a few brutal action scenes that need to show us that Bond is still human and not so Terminator-like because once Bond dispatches people, he just never seems to take a deep breath and say to himself "Blimey, I could have been killed..." and just moves on to the next plot point far too efficiently when no one is supposedly around him, it's like Bond is even aware of the camera following his every move, and afraid to not look cold and ruthless. Also, for some odd reason, I just find Daniel Craig's chemistry with practically anyone in the cast to be nill and lacking in charm (save for Agent Fields). Perhaps playing Bond with Terminator-like mannerisms just kills whatever chemistry that could develop between the characters, even though they almost achieve some chemistry between Bond and Mathis, but it was too little too late.

The main villain, Dominic Greene, just isn't quite menacing enough, and far too uninteresting given his end game in the film, as his part in the story development is simply poor and uninvolving. I did like Camile, played by Olga Kurylenko, as she and Bond were simply two ships passing in the night, without the requisite port dockage (probably a first in the Bond franchise). But Camile's own little story never quite meshes well with Bond's own personal vendetta following the events of Casino Royale, and again, story development is rather boring.

I did laugh when I found out Agent Fields' first name in the credits: Strawberry.

I want Q and the gadgets back in the Bond franchise, I need them. I am not all that enamored with Judi Dench as M, lose her if we have to in the next installment, I won't care. The theme song is at the bottom of the list for me in the Bond franchise as well.

Overall, the 105-minute running time felt like 125 minutes because the film drags when it's not involved with a chase scene, and that's not a good thing for a film attempting to re-vitalize the James Bond films for a new generation.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.

[Dean Kousoulas]

Was the barrel shot intro introduced again?

[Goldberg74]

Was the barrel shot intro introduced again?

... yup, at the very end. It opened the end credits.

I'm not going to read this thread (beyond this page and post); I liked the film, as did the friends that I went with.

No need to over think the franchise by reading all y'alls cheers and jeers.

Bring on the next one.

[starseed1981]

I liked it....not as much as Casino Royale though.

[utopianz14]

QoS exceeded my expectations, but my expectations were pretty low to begin with.

Marc Forster was the wrong director for this 007 film - he doesn't have a grasp of what a James Bond film should be. As great a departure Casino Royale was from the formula, it remained faithful to the James Bond movie character. Forster is too arrogant, too much of a self-proclaimed auteur to follow the footsteps of a franchise older than he is.

We don't need over-the-top gadgetry and shudder-inducing one-liners, but is it really that difficult to let Daniel Craig say, "Bond, James Bond" just once in the film? Other than the names of the characters, there's simply nothing that makes this distinctly a James Bond film.

And then there's the action sequences. They're all a dreadful mess, especially when the action is spliced with the horse race and the opera performance. It's done for the sake of being artsy-fartsy, and doesn't take the time to truly and meaningfully connect the two concurrent actions. Note to the editor: watch the baptism scene in The Godfather. That's how it's supposed to be done.

I just hope everyone who complains about the action scene edits are consistent and are equally disgusted with the Bourne movies and Nolan's Batman. Those movies are just as shaky cam quick cuts. If you don't agree, watch them again.
I think you're the one who should watch them again. There is a big difference between the editing in the Greengrass Bourne movies and that in the Nolan Batman/QoS films. In both The Dark Knight and QoS, spatial logic is tossed out the window - you simply cannot visualize where everything is taking place; you can only distinguish the what's, how's, and when's of these scenes.

Just because a scene is shot handheld and the edits are quick does not automatically mean there is only one way to sequence the shots in a timeline. The action scenes in TDK and QoS lack the care and attention to detail that went into editing those in the Bourne films. Bourne Ultimatum was well-deserved in winning the Oscar for best editing for that reason, and it's awful when filmmakers come in thinking they can emulate it just by shaking the camera and cutting quickly without an ounce of talent or vision in structuring action.

Ultimately, I'm giving QoS a 3/5 because there are some pretty stand-out scenes. The opera (pre-chase) was excellent, and there was definitely a glimmer of dramatic possibility when Bond was telling Camille about killing someone for the first time - it felt very Fleming-esque and left me longing for a lengthier monologue.

[thelwig14]

I think you're the one who should watch them again. There is a big difference between the editing in the Greengrass Bourne movies and that in the Nolan Batman/QoS films. In both The Dark Knight and QoS, spatial logic is tossed out the window - you simply cannot visualize where everything is taking place; you can only distinguish the what's, how's, and when's of these scenes.

Just because a scene is shot handheld and the edits are quick does not automatically mean there is only one way to sequence the shots in a timeline. The action scenes in TDK and QoS lack the care and attention to detail that went into editing those in the Bourne films. Bourne Ultimatum was well-deserved in winning the Oscar for best editing for that reason, and it's awful when filmmakers come in thinking they can emulate it just by shaking the camera and cutting quickly without an ounce of talent or vision in structuring action.
.

Just because someone wins an Oscar doesn't make it legit. To try and differentiate between the 3 movies is ridiculous. Greengrass even admitted is amateurish action direction by significantly toning down the shaky cam in the 3rd one, yet it still is over the top. Only a weak director creates chaos in an action sequence via camera work. Bourne movies are amazing...QoS was amazing...Nolan's Batman is amazing...but all 3 are very weak in the action editing department. And to try and separate one or two from the three is laughable. Oscar or not.

[Suprmallet]

I think you're the one who should watch them again. There is a big difference between the editing in the Greengrass Bourne movies and that in the Nolan Batman/QoS films. In both The Dark Knight and QoS, spatial logic is tossed out the window - you simply cannot visualize where everything is taking place; you can only distinguish the what's, how's, and when's of these scenes.

Just because a scene is shot handheld and the edits are quick does not automatically mean there is only one way to sequence the shots in a timeline. The action scenes in TDK and QoS lack the care and attention to detail that went into editing those in the Bourne films. Bourne Ultimatum was well-deserved in winning the Oscar for best editing for that reason, and it's awful when filmmakers come in thinking they can emulate it just by shaking the camera and cutting quickly without an ounce of talent or vision in structuring action.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I have to address something here. The last two Bourne films were cut the way they were for a specific purpose. That purpose was to show how fast and talented Bourne is at hand to hand combat. Batman Begins is cut in a similar way for a very different reason: To show how Batman uses misdirection and mystery to psychologically overwhelm his foes, beating them mentally as well as physically. And while they may be edited in a quick cut fashion, Batman does not employ much shaky cam, simply quick cuts of very tight shots. And The Dark Knight doesn't do much of this at all, framing the action in a much more straightforward way.

I will agree that Forster had no clue what he was doing when he cut QoS this way, but Nolan had a very specific purpose for cutting the action in Batman Begins the way he did, and it had nothing to do with emulating the Bourne franchise.

[Jam Master Jay]

I don't miss Q and the gadgets at all, remember when Bond surfed a 100 ft tidal wave? Or how about when he was driving a invisible car? I love the direction the series is going and this installment was awesome! I still think that I liked Casino Royale better, but this was the sequel and it was a good follow up.

[MaxMFP]

Daniel Craig IS Ian Fleming's James Bond 007



Not necessarily a good thing. Have you actually read Quantum of Solace?

[MaxMFP]

Edit: And one other thing, by the way this movie is constructed, it seems like MI6 consists only of Bond, M, and an analyst. Guess the tight economy hit British intelligence as well. ;)



One of my all-time favorite Bond moments ever happens when Connery walks late into the classified MI6 meeting and takes his seat among all of the other agents.

[MaxMFP]

I enjoyed the film quite a bit. Yes, Marc Forster was an odd and not entirely satisfying choice to direct, but Quantum of Solace is still better than any of the Roger Moore films



Not The Spy Who Loved Me. Not a chance, and I will defend that to the end.

[MaxMFP]

"Take her...she's sea sick"

I missed the Bond one-liners in this film.


Shocking.

[MaxMFP]

From your comments, I take it that you didn't care for Goldfinger (which is widely regarded as the best Bond film ever).



From Russia With Love is, and will most likely always be, the best James Bond film ever.

[MaxMFP]

this is Bond as Fleming envisioned him.



Again, this is completely irrelevant.

Have any of you actually read Fleming's terrible writing or am I actually the only one?

[DRG]

Really on the fence about this one. I'm all for showing Bond as having a human side, but I'm just not into this whole 'Bond in Love/Bond wants revenge' story arc that began late in Casino Royale (the worst aspect of that otherwise great movie IMO) and continues here. I didn't believe one second of that love storyline, so to have this film emotionally anchored to it is a negative.

Next, the whole Bond becomes a rogue agent thing is getting played out and is already as much of a spy movie cliche as the gadgets and other things they are actively trying to distance themselves from.

All that said, I didn't think it was a bad film. I enjoyed it, despite its faults. I just hope that one of these days they let Craig's 007 be a real agent with a real assignment and not just some angsty avenger.

[MaxMFP]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I have to address something here. The last two Bourne films were cut the way they were for a specific purpose. That purpose was to show how fast and talented Bourne is at hand to hand combat. Batman Begins is cut in a similar way for a very different reason: To show how Batman uses misdirection and mystery to psychologically overwhelm his foes, beating them mentally as well as physically.



Thank you. I would never say the fight scenes in either Nolan Batman film employed what we all now so fondly call shakey-cam. They were simply filmed very tight and for their respective scenes I think they all work quite well. The fight scenes in the Bourne films are also extremely effective, imo.

It's only the Bourne car chases that are overdone and overly preposterous.

[rw2516]

One of my all-time favorite Bond moments ever happens when Connery walks late into the classified MI6 meeting and takes his seat among all of the other agents.

M:"Now that we're all here"

[brianluvdvd]

I don't miss Q and the gadgets at all, remember when Bond surfed a 100 ft tidal wave? Or how about when he was driving a invisible car? I love the direction the series is going and this installment was awesome! I still think that I liked Casino Royale better, but this was the sequel and it was a good follow up.

You just named two moments from one movie that was one of the worst Bond films ever. You can have cool gadgets and realistic amazing stunts and still be enjoyable. See the first 20 years. Certainly not every Bond film applies during this time but most do. Examples are too numerous to name.

[Giantrobo]

From your comments, I take it that you didn't care for Goldfinger (which is widely regarded as the best Bond film ever). It had all of the elements you dislike - a babe with a cheesy double-entendre name, "corny" one-liners, (moderately) far-fetched gadgets, and an over-the-top villain, complete with an equally over-the-top henchman (who was completely "busted" by the Mythbusters team, BTW ;)).

I'm not saying that Moonraker is a great Bond film by any stretch, but to eliminate all of the elements I mentioned above makes one wonder, why bother calling it a Bond film at all? There are plenty of good, generic action flicks out there. Bond always offered something more. But with this film, even the reviews I've read that were fairly positive were quick to admit that the "Bond-as-Bourne" critics are justified in their complaints.


Maybe, just maybe...The Bourne films raised the bar thus the Bond films had to respond. I don't blame Bourne films for the Bond/Bourne comparison. I blame the way Bond films had become over the top silly and less realistic over the years. As I said earlier, I don't mind gadgets but keep them to a minimum and make them realistic.

<b>Back on topic....</b>

I'm very much looking forward to seeing QoS and I have a feeling I'm going to like it a lot. :up:


Craig...:up::up:
Olga Kurylenko...oh dear gawd :drool::drool:

[Sessa17]

Wow...this is almost everything I was going to type.

Almost everything about this movie is wrong in relation to James Bond movies. And if you think this is Ian Fleming's version of Bond, you obviously haven't read any of his books.

The action scenes are total shit. All of them. Who the fuck edited this movie? They are all shot so close-up, with the jerky camera and lightning fast cuts that you can't even tell what the fuck is going on. Awful. And this was EVERY action scene. Hell, the Bourne movies pull back some and let you at least see what the fuck is going on. I know they want to "modernize" the franchise but even the Transporter movies let you enjoy the action scenes.

The opening title sequence sucked. Granted the theme song was pure ass but you could have at least thrown a few nekked girls in the background to remind us this is supposed to be a JB film. Craig doing the exact same shadow pose does not a JB title sequence make. One girl made out of sand doesn't cut it. Extremely dull. But again...it could just be the song. It is by far one of the worst in the JB catalog.

Fuck Judi Dench as M. I hated when they originally cast her and hate her even more now. M doesn't go to crime scenes and investigate shit. He sits at his desk and has his people do that crap for him. He doesn't get kidnapped, he doesn't whine. He barks orders and keeps 007 in his place. 007 doesn't need a fucking mommy...he needs his boss back. I am sick of this shit.

The villain is super lame. I know...007 has faced his share of lame villains in the past but I thought they could at least come up with something better than an eco-water-bearing hotel owner??? What the fuck? And why is 007 there in the first place? Is it revenge? Is it to help the girl get revenge? Is it to help get water to the people? Real estate? Who knows with this convoluted plot.

I don't want snappy one-liners every few seconds but Jesus, Connery shits better one-liners in his Depends now than the few written for Craig. And Craig's delivery of the meager few are pretty terrible. He has no sense of timing with them and they just come out flat and show how lame they are. There was only one decent chuckle and it actually came from M regarding the dead-end comment.

The Bond girl. Oh yeah...who cares? Bond doesn't seem to want to fuck her so why should we? Tell me again why she's in the movie?

The bright spots which are few and far between: Craig still makes an excellent Bond but he is being shit on by the writing as Brosnan was. Find a happy medium. You don't have to have invisible cars but at least give us some realistic cool technology that may or may not be real. This one had cell phones and you can also draw pretty pictures of secret intel on the secretary's desk or wall. Holy cow! Impressive!

Use Craig's strengths as a quiet but cool strongman but let the guy have fun too. Say what you want about Roger Moore but the one thing I always liked about his movies was: Pussy first. Bad guys second. Done. And he winked at the camera from time to time to let you know he was having a blast and you were in on the fun. They were fun movies. Not the best all the time but at least fun to watch with fantastic stunts that were filmed far enough back for you to see the action and realize that even though it was a stunt man doing it, it was still a REAL stunt. you kids marvel at that for awhile!

And Bond producers: Use all the money you made on the last several movies to hire some decent screenwriters. I felt like I did when I watched the newest Indiana Jones movie: "All that time and money and this is the best script/story they could come up with? What the hell?"

There really wasn't much good about this movie as it was just your average action flick. This was not a James Bond movie. If you took out the parts where he was called 007, you would have thought you were watching Action Night on Showtime.

The famous James Bond theme was nowhere to be found in the film as well. Yeah, a couple of times it was subtle and barely included but hey, you own it...why not use it? Remember the good old days when talented composers could create new and beautiful music (John Barry...where are you?) that had a heart, was catchy, didn't sound like every other generic action score, and could interweave the theme song and the James Bond theme in new and interesting ways throughout the picture? Oh yeah...you can't because fucking David Arnold has been slowly killing the movies with his bland scores that keep getting worse with every consecutive Bond film he does. Get a new composer, please.

This new Bond already needs a reboot. I am just hoping that they put the barrel shot at the end of the film to say that this is the closing of the chapter of the rough around the edges Bond and that the suave, sophisticated, girl-chasing fun loving Bond will be back in the next series. And maybe it means a new M, composer, writer, editor, and director may be on the horizon. One can dream.

My rating: **1/2 out of *****

:clap: my exact feelings on the film but now I don't have to waste all that time typing it up.

If anything I may give it less that 2 & a half stars. I can't believe the praise this film is getting in this thread so far. I LOVED Casinoe Royale, it deserves all the hype & love it gets, if not more. But I'm sorry, this is NOT a Bond movie, it doesn't feel like a Bond movie. This looks & feels just another modern, post-Bourne wannabe action movie. It doesn't feel like the next chapter in a new updated Bond franchise. And the action is flat out unwatchable. Only made more puzzling, b/c Craig can DO action, it's not a case where you need to use every trick in the book to cover up the fact that you have an actor that can't convincingly fight.

And holy crap do I agree with your hatred of Judi Dench in this role.

[BullGooseLoony]

Let me just say this: my expectations for this movie have progessively lowered ever since the release of Casino Royale. When I heard that Martin Campbell wouldn't be coming back on, I was let down. Campbell brought the Bond series back to life TWICE, pay him whatever he wants and know that his Bond will be great. He also directed The Mask of Zorro, which I think is a wonderful balance of how good choreography, action, a histoic character, and funny dialogue can go hand-in-hand.

Marc Foster is a good "for the job" type director. He's only been involved with good films, but doesn't really have any defining touches. So when he was announced, I was a little let down.

And then I read that the movie was only 106 minutes long. Now, while Casino Royale was the longest Bond movie, and probably about 15 minutes overlong itself, I kind of figured the sequel would be shorter. I usually like my sequels longer than the first (raised stakes should equal raised running time), but I kind of expected a standard 2-hour Bond movie. Then I also figured, "hey, Terminator 3 was only 108 minutes long, and it was absolutely awesome." So I figured, shorter is a little weird, but I'm willing to be surprised.

And let's face it, now we're spoiled. After we saw Batman Begins, none of us thought the sequel would be light-years better. After Casino Royale, I truly felt that a sequel should be just as good.

And it's not. Despite my leveled expections and the fact that I've been listening to "Another Way to Die" since the single was released (I personally love the song, but I know it's very silly, especially Alicia Keys' wailing), I found Quantum of Solace to be shockingly...meh.

The action just isn't exciting. There's so much of it, it comes so quickly, and Bond walks away so unscatched that I never feel the threat. I know he's more experienced this time around, but it's still never harrowing.

The plot doesn't make all that much sense. We're supposed to be finding out about the bad buys behind the first movie, and not someone who wants to steal water. It's just a little too D-grade "Superman" plot for me.

Bond barely says anything. If I didn't know any better, I'd say Craig was boring, which we know he really isn't. He doesn't touch, doesn't emote, doesn't do much of anything, really.

And what was with the font changes every time we were in a different country. That was just silly.

The climax was ok, and a good enough set-piece. In fact, it definitely had more climax than the previous film, but there was so little before it, it hardly mattered.

Overall, this movie was just missing "it." There was no oomph, no excitement, no sensation that you were watching anything special. It's great to see the story from the first one continued, but this is remarkably uneventful movie. Had this been Casino Royale 4, I'd be little less disappointed, but this is the first real sequel, and I can't help but wonder if it should be the last.

** (out of 4)

[RagingBull80]

I'm not really a big Bond fan but I thought Casino Royale was pretty amazing.

I thought QoS was a good movie. Not as good as CR but good. There is a lot of action as I think there should be. The story moves along rather quickly.*

I think Bond was more human in the first one but it made sense to me that he was more of a man on a mission, more of a machine this time around.

I loved how this installment takes place minutes after the last.

*The problem with the movie is that it doesn't have a strong enough story. It should have been fleshed out better but it seems as though the story took a backseat to Bond being a hellbent badass.

Out of 5*

Casino Royale - ****
Quantum of Solace - ***

Looking forward to another one.

[The Bus]

I just hope everyone who complains about the action scene edits are consistent and are equally disgusted with the Bourne movies and Nolan's Batman. Those movies are just as shaky cam quick cuts. If you don't agree, watch them again.

No, they're not. Look at Nolan's big-rig / batpod sequence. Look at Greengrass's fist fight in Morocco(?) in Bourne Ultimatum. Those are pitch-perfect.

Like mdc3000 said, and like I told my girlfriend last night, action scenes need space to breathe. Use a long lens once in a while.

I wonder if Forster shot these in sequence because by the end of QoS, I felt his action directing was average, as opposed to deplorable. That beginning sequence was terrible.

QoS was OK. If you're a Bond fan, it's worth watching. But Bond is going in the wrong direction, and fast. Very, very fast.

I will say one thing: If this was the first movie since Brosnan's last one, it would still be an improvement. But Casino Royale was very, very good.

[mdc3000]

I wonder if Forster shot these in sequence because by the end of QoS, I felt his action directing was average, as opposed to deplorable. That beginning sequence was terrible.

I wondered this too since the final action sequence was the only one where I felt he got pretty close to hitting the mark - not all the way there but it was easily the best one in the film.

[RoboDad]

From Russia With Love is, and will most likely always be, the best James Bond film ever.

I'm not talking about your opinion, or mine. I was referring to polls conducted among fans and critics, where (from what I've seen, anyway) Goldfinger pretty consistently ranks in either the #1 or #2 spot (more often #1). And it was the film that established the "Bond formula" that has been more-or-less followed in all of the subsequent films, until Casino Royale.

Maybe, just maybe...The Bourne films raised the bar thus the Bond films had to respond. I don't blame Bourne films for the Bond/Bourne comparison. I blame the way Bond films had become over the top silly and less realistic over the years. As I said earlier, I don't mind gadgets but keep them to a minimum and make them realistic.
Did some of the later films take things to absurd levels? Of course. Does that mean that the formula itself has outlived its usefulness? Not in this fan's opinion.

You just named two moments from one movie that was one of the worst Bond films ever. You can have cool gadgets and realistic amazing stunts and still be enjoyable. See the first 20 years. Certainly not every Bond film applies during this time but most do. Examples are too numerous to name.
My point exactly.

[B.A.]

While it wasn't anywhere near perfect, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. ***1/2 out of five.

I liked the song.

I loved the opera scene.

Olga is all kinds of hot.

They should use more of Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter. He has great screen presence and good chemistry w/ Craig.

[half soldier]

As great as CR was, QOS was just a freaking mess.

Makes Roger Moore flicks look better and better.

QOS has no personality, does not create any interest in characters whatsoever.

Villain was horrible.

I goot a believe that between Live and Let Die and View To A Kill, Moore was the most fun and coherent Bond. Connery was fine too, at least Sean had more fun than poor Craig. What a bore.

[half soldier]

As great as CR was, QOS was just a freaking mess.

Makes Roger Moore flicks look better and better.

QOS has no personality, does not create any interest in characters whatsoever.

Villain was horrible.

I got a believe that between Live and Let Die and View To A Kill, Moore was the most fun and coherent Bond. Connery was fine too, at least Sean had more fun than poor Craig. What a bore.

No one liners, no gadgets, no fun, no even a Bond movie per se. Time to reboot once again

[Brack]

Like many have already said, I think Casino Royale was a better overall movie, but Quantum of Solace was a great follow-up. I haven't seen all of the Bond movies, but is this the first one that actually remembers what happened in the previous film? I liked that. I thought the action was pretty exciting, and the babes were hot as expected. I'm so over the constant one-liners and silly gadgets from the earlier films. The criticisms from the top critics really didn't say the movie was bad, but complained it wasn't a Bond movie. I say to that: So what? Aren't they tired of the same type of plots but with different actors and gadgets? I know I am.

[wakwak007]

I liked QOS a lot. I just came back from watching it with my wife. I thought it had a lot of things that pay homage to the other bond films and the editing was alot like a Bourne movie. Craig made makes a great Bond! I already look foward to the next one.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

The opera scene was great. i couldn't tell what Bond tossed at Greene at the end until M said it. Is Q no longer a part of the movies? I also like the more realistic Bond, I thought the series had jumped the shark with the invisible car.

[dadaluholla]

Meh. It wasn't too bad. I'll probably check it out again once it hits DVD. The action scenes were great, and I think I need another viewing to try and figure out what the hell the plot was supposed to have been.

[Ranger]

OK, back from this, and man, the song is really bad. I just can't stand it. After the song, I think it was all uphill. There were some good action scenes, some good drama, but some dull moments as well. I don't even think i will bother getting the dvd now.

But hey, saw the previews for watchmen and star trek :up:

[celmendo]

QS was way too much like the last Bourne movie. That one worked because there wasn't really that much more story to tell, just the final leg of the journey; So the fast pace and minimal dialogue stretches worked.

It didn't really work for a Bond film. We want the story and the word play, cool villains and location and gadgets. CR was great in that it had plenty of story and a lot of grittier action than other Bond films before it which brought it to a modern level. There was way too much fast editing in this and everyone and everything seemed to be thrown at you so fast you could really care less. Yeah it was a continuation of the last movie but there still has to be an interesting tale not just an action video. The only time I really liked this one was when it slowed down and had some verbal character interaction. The opening credits were the least memorable of any Bond film. I am in the minority in that I like the song and I like Judi Dench as M. And did we ever really find out what Quantum is or what their objective is?

Overall I liked it but Casino Royale was a steak dinner and this was just an elaborate sushi roll that was confusing to eat and messy. It was pretty and yummy but I was left wanting something satisfying.

[45shooter]

Wow...this is almost everything I was going to type.

Almost everything about this movie is wrong in relation to James Bond movies. And if you think this is Ian Fleming's version of Bond, you obviously haven't read any of his books.

The action scenes are total shit. All of them. Who the fuck edited this movie? They are all shot so close-up, with the jerky camera and lightning fast cuts that you can't even tell what the fuck is going on. Awful. And this was EVERY action scene. Hell, the Bourne movies pull back some and let you at least see what the fuck is going on. I know they want to "modernize" the franchise but even the Transporter movies let you enjoy the action scenes.

The opening title sequence sucked. Granted the theme song was pure ass but you could have at least thrown a few nekked girls in the background to remind us this is supposed to be a JB film. Craig doing the exact same shadow pose does not a JB title sequence make. One girl made out of sand doesn't cut it. Extremely dull. But again...it could just be the song. It is by far one of the worst in the JB catalog.

Fuck Judi Dench as M. I hated when they originally cast her and hate her even more now. M doesn't go to crime scenes and investigate shit. He sits at his desk and has his people do that crap for him. He doesn't get kidnapped, he doesn't whine. He barks orders and keeps 007 in his place. 007 doesn't need a fucking mommy...he needs his boss back. I am sick of this shit.

The villain is super lame. I know...007 has faced his share of lame villains in the past but I thought they could at least come up with something better than an eco-water-bearing hotel owner??? What the fuck? And why is 007 there in the first place? Is it revenge? Is it to help the girl get revenge? Is it to help get water to the people? Real estate? Who knows with this convoluted plot.

I don't want snappy one-liners every few seconds but Jesus, Connery shits better one-liners in his Depends now than the few written for Craig. And Craig's delivery of the meager few are pretty terrible. He has no sense of timing with them and they just come out flat and show how lame they are. There was only one decent chuckle and it actually came from M regarding the dead-end comment.

The Bond girl. Oh yeah...who cares? Bond doesn't seem to want to fuck her so why should we? Tell me again why she's in the movie?

The bright spots which are few and far between: Craig still makes an excellent Bond but he is being shit on by the writing as Brosnan was. Find a happy medium. You don't have to have invisible cars but at least give us some realistic cool technology that may or may not be real. This one had cell phones and you can also draw pretty pictures of secret intel on the secretary's desk or wall. Holy cow! Impressive!

Use Craig's strengths as a quiet but cool strongman but let the guy have fun too. Say what you want about Roger Moore but the one thing I always liked about his movies was: Pussy first. Bad guys second. Done. And he winked at the camera from time to time to let you know he was having a blast and you were in on the fun. They were fun movies. Not the best all the time but at least fun to watch with fantastic stunts that were filmed far enough back for you to see the action and realize that even though it was a stunt man doing it, it was still a REAL stunt. you kids marvel at that for awhile!

And Bond producers: Use all the money you made on the last several movies to hire some decent screenwriters. I felt like I did when I watched the newest Indiana Jones movie: "All that time and money and this is the best script/story they could come up with? What the hell?"

There really wasn't much good about this movie as it was just your average action flick. This was not a James Bond movie. If you took out the parts where he was called 007, you would have thought you were watching Action Night on Showtime.

The famous James Bond theme was nowhere to be found in the film as well. Yeah, a couple of times it was subtle and barely included but hey, you own it...why not use it? Remember the good old days when talented composers could create new and beautiful music (John Barry...where are you?) that had a heart, was catchy, didn't sound like every other generic action score, and could interweave the theme song and the James Bond theme in new and interesting ways throughout the picture? Oh yeah...you can't because fucking David Arnold has been slowly killing the movies with his bland scores that keep getting worse with every consecutive Bond film he does. Get a new composer, please.

This new Bond already needs a reboot. I am just hoping that they put the barrel shot at the end of the film to say that this is the closing of the chapter of the rough around the edges Bond and that the suave, sophisticated, girl-chasing fun loving Bond will be back in the next series. And maybe it means a new M, composer, writer, editor, and director may be on the horizon. One can dream.

My rating: **1/2 out of *****

Amen - 100 % on every thing said above. But the next movie should have Bond back as an avenger - he should be avenging Judi Dench as M, who takes a 50 cal round through the head in the opening credits of the next one. Then we could reboot M as someone who gives a shit about foiling whatever caper is going on rather fretting about Bond being a "misogynistic sexist" who gets too much supermodel pussy.

[Ron G]

So far, I'm not liking this film. Of course, it's not given me a whole lot of story to either like or dislike.

I guess this is that fantastic Paul Haggis writing that made Crash such a wonderful film?

[Ranger]

Why didn't they have Martin Campbell (CR director) direct this?

[devilshalo]

I sort of understand the negative reactions some/most of you have. This is not a typical Bond film. But put back to back with Casino Royale, this is the perfect companion piece, as a cohesive continuous storyline. Yes, there are influences from the Bourne series, so what? I enjoyed the ride. I also see Casino Royale and QoS as the Alien and Aliens of the Bond franchise.

If there is a movie this reminds me of, it's Mel Gibson's Payback. This is a revenge flick with one agenda that has a lot of things that get in the way of Bond's goal. I look forward to seing how Bond deals with uncovering Quantum in future films.

[Ron G]

It's more than I'm 45 minutes in, and there's still not enough of a story yet. I can appreciate the revenge angle, it's just that action sequence after action sequence reveals a lack of good writing. Even if this is put back-to-back with Casino Royale, there's too much action without interspersed story development.

I also get tired of Haggis's knee-jerk anti-Americanism, but that's another argument.

[DJariya]

I enjoyed it, but mainly for the action sequences. The story was a little hard to follow and I kind of get lost mid-way through the movie.

I thought Craig was solid once again. If you watched the bonus material on the Casino Royale, Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli said they were aiming to make Bond darker and more to what Ian Fleming envisioned him to be. Hence, that's why we haven't heard any of the witty 1-liners or sarcasm from Brosnan or Moore. They said that Brosnan's Bond was a little over the top.

I was actually shocked that Olga Kurylenko's Camille was the 1st Bond girl that he didn't have sex with. I thought she was so much hotter in here than in Hitman. She wasn't as much of a toothpick this time around. Kind of weird IMO to cast a Russian actress to play a South American woman. Although her looks could pass her off as one.

I thought it was funny when "Fields" picked up Bond and Mathis from the airport, it so looked like she had nothing on undernearth that trench coat. It was almost like she was expecting to have sex with Bond.

I hope Broccoli and Wilson hire someone other than Neal Purvis and Robert Wade to write the next Bond movie. This is the 4th Bond movie in a row they have written and 2nd with Haggis. There are probably thousands of talented writers who deserve a chance to pen the next movie.

Overall, I would give this movie a B-

[wm lopez]

I liked the movie better than CASINO ROYALE. The movie is not boring.
The only thing I didn't like was the opening credit song. It's the 3rd straight piece of trash music. I didn't like the moving camera in all the action scenes. It ruined what looked like great action scenes. If moving camera is supposed to make the film goer feel like they are part of the action it doesn't. It makes me feel like I'm looking at cheap film making.

[B.A.]

I look forward to seing how Bond deals with uncovering Quantum in future films.
I really hope they keep up w/ the Mr. White/Quantum storyline in the next film.

[Patman]

Did they ever explain all the scarring on Camile's back?

[dadaluholla]

Did they ever explain all the scarring on Camile's back?

She was in a fire as a child? I think when her family was killed. I'm not sure. It was hard to follow.

[xage]

Quantumn of Solace is basically a bond "action film" who seeks closure of his broken heart.

I like the pacing of this , too much story on Casino Royale and I guess its a good thing to answer it with action for this.

One more thing I noticed

Mr White is still alive...

Will this person be involved on the next bond film?

[Roybq]

Did they ever explain all the scarring on Camile's back?


I assumed it was from her earlier fire experience.

[MaxMFP]

As great as CR was, QOS was just a freaking mess.

Makes Roger Moore flicks look better and better.

QOS has no personality, does not create any interest in characters whatsoever.

Villain was horrible.

I got a believe that between Live and Let Die and View To A Kill, Moore was the most fun and coherent Bond. Connery was fine too, at least Sean had more fun than poor Craig. What a bore.

No one liners, no gadgets, no fun, no even a Bond movie per se. Time to reboot once again




Roger Moore will always be the "least best" James Bond.

Nice try.

Moonraker out.

[scott1598]

the magic from CR was gone. i agree with many reviewers in saying this Bond was boring. the action scenes were uninspired and the plot seemed unoriginal given "Tomorrow Never Dies". very meh feelings and wish it stuck to more heart like CR did, but i guess the ending of that seemed to set up his lack of emotion in this. disappointed.

[Ron G]

Roger Moore will always be the "least best" James Bond.

Nice try.

Moonraker out.

But could Daniel Craig pull off a leisure suit?

I think not.

[MaxMFP]

But could Daniel Craig pull off a leisure suit?




Craig is just getting started with this character.

[cranberries fan]

I like it a alot and having seen every Bond from start to finished and this is one of best.

I think alot people are upset because it's a short film (103 mins).

I like a Quick-Action from time-to-time and this fits the bill and I LOVE IT.

[devilshalo]

I was actually shocked that Olga Kurylenko's Camille was the 1st Bond girl that he didn't have sex with. I thought she was so much hotter in here than in Hitman. She wasn't as much of a toothpick this time around. Kind of weird IMO to cast a Russian actress to play a South American woman. Although her looks could pass her off as one.
They explained that her mother was a Russian ballerina.

This was Bond at his most sympathetic. I think he saw himself in Camille and that's why there wasn't any sexual tension between them.

[huh?]

I saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. It wasn't as good as CR, but it was fun. I actually sort of like the lack of gadgets. There were too many gadgets in Pierce's Bond films.

i enjoyed that the story picked up after CR ended for the most part. Looks like Mr. White is the new Blofeld. The fact that this "organization" is off the radar of the CIA and MI6 is a good twist.

Anyway, the use of the close camera during the action shots was a much, but overall I enjoyed it.

3 out of 4 stars from me.

[MBoyd]

Ebert gave it a 2 out of 4 (he gave Casino Royale a 4 out of 4), it's apparently the first negative bond review since Living Daylights.

Whatever Ebert. Living Daylights was way better than License to Kill and any of the Brosnan pics except maybe Tomorrow Never Dies. Also Living Daylights was MASSIVELY better than View To A Kill.

[SkipKassidy]

I was actually shocked that Olga Kurylenko's Camille was the 1st Bond girl that he didn't have sex with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Timothy Dalton have sex with either Maryam d'Abo in The Living Daylights or Carey Lowell in License to Kill?

[Superman07]

Just saw this last night and was pleased. I will say I prefered CR over this, but it was still good.

I thought the directing was good - especially the slow-motion edited into speed up action - opening chaes scene and the opera scene. I do wish that his upside down shot of the guy was the last one into the opening sequence. :shrug:

I liked how there was a presence given to "the organizaton" and how that was the driving force behind the film. Remember, the money trail is what led him across the Atlantic in the first place. He just happened to stumble upon Camille.

Also, as Greene's plot was uncovered - and partially not until the end with the control of the dictators water supply - the point became obvious to me that much like LaCiffe, Greene is not a over the top villain. Instead, he's part of the villain - which is Quantum itself. They are trying to use their technology, resources, etc. to obtain influence across the world to as a means to an end to control what they want.

I do feel the plot wasn't obvious, but I think it unfolded for the viewer as it unfolded for Bond. Also, I think it was obvious this ties into whatever the next Bond film will be and was meant as such. Mostly the reason why it felt dangling. Sure it could have been longer, but I'd rather it was purposeful and to the point, rather than bloated for the sake of time.

I was very pleased to see the M/Bond relationship continue to mature. She is his boss and she's also trying to make sure he continues to grow into the agent she needs. I thought the segment on trust in the hotel was partiuclarly telling.

Finally, I have to completely disagree with brianluvdvd and his two followers thus far. It's obvious that you were happy with the orginal 20 Bond films, and I'd say your probably better of sticking with those. This new series of films with Craig has updated Bond for the 21st century to match what viewers have come to expect from their characters and films - smart, well written and not somebody or thing that relies on technical wonders to solve issues.

[Sessa17]

Finally, I have to completely disagree with brianluvdvd and his two followers thus far. It's obvious that you were happy with the orginal 20 Bond films, and I'd say your probably better of sticking with those. This new series of films with Craig has updated Bond for the 21st century to match what viewers have come to expect from their characters and films - smart, well written and not somebody or thing that relies on technical wonders to solve issues.

This annoys the shit out of me, & if you actually read brianluvdvd's post, & mine (since I was one of his 2 "followers". You would see that I LOVED Casino Royale. After coming off of what IMO were the 3 absolute worste Bonds in the franchise, this new direction is exactly what the Bond-legacy needed. But just b/c Bond isn't full of humerous quips & movie-gadgets, doesn't mean the film is instantly "intelligent". CR was a fresh & smart beginning. QoS is not a worthy succesor.

More than half of my problem with QoS, is the directing, which has been dumbded down, for the 21st century, & lacks the "intelligence" that you claim this movie has. The action scenes are a mess, completely derivitive, & chopped & edited to hell, like a bromide copy of so many other modern action films & MTV music videos for people with no attention spans. This is something that Casino Royale did not do or rely on.

For me, it was the psycholigical approach that CR had, that made it so interesting & fresh. This movie had none of that, yeah, I get it tried to be a pure revenge movie, but that is no reason it can't delve further into the psyche of this new bond, in fact it's all the more reason to do exactly that. The exteme lack of dialogue by Bond, left the character stagnant. I wanted to see more of Craig, as this new Bond, & less of shaky cameras, cliched action, a boring villain & horrendously overrated & annoying M. Putting her in a role completely taken from the Bourne movies is NOT intelligent. This movie is not intelligent. And M goint to a crime scene like a CSI menber & then interogating a prisoner is flat out retarded.

Seriously, where do you think this movie is "intelligent"? What was the deal with the building that's powered by hydrogen fuel cells? "We'll make this building that keeps exploding!"

And I swear to Christ I want to dick-punch the next person that posts or that I hear say "this is the way Fleming meant Bond to be"! Pick up a damn book & try reading it, instead of just quoting some blurb you read in a magazine by an ignorant critic. Casino Royale is a phenomenal film, this one is a steaming pile of cliche, does not feel like a Bond film & most certainly is nothing like Fleming's Bond.

[Superman07]

This annoys the shit out of me, & if you actually read brianluvdvd's post, & mine (since I was one of his 2 "followers". You would see that I LOVED Casino Royale. After coming off of what IMO were the 3 absolute worste Bonds in the franchise, this new direction is exactly what the Bond-legacy needed. But just b/c Bond isn't full of humerous quips & movie-gadgets, doesn't mean the film is instantly "intelligent". CR was a fresh & smart beginning. QoS is not a worthy succesor.

More than half of my problem with QoS, is the directing, which has been dumbded down, for the 21st century, & lacks the "intelligence" that you claim this movie has. The action scenes are a mess, completely derivitive, & chopped & edited to hell, like a bromide copy of so many other modern action films & MTV music videos for people with no attention spans. This is something that Casino Royale did not do or rely on.

For me, it was the psycholigical approach that CR had, that made it so interesting & fresh. This movie had none of that, yeah, I get it tried to be a pure revenge movie, but that is no reason it can't delve further into the psyche of this new bond, in fact it's all the more reason to do exactly that. The exteme lack of dialogue by Bond, left the character stagnant. I wanted to see more of Craig, as this new Bond, & less of shaky cameras, cliched action, a boring villain & horrendously overrated & annoying M. Putting her in a role completely taken from the Bourne movies is NOT intelligent. This movie is not intelligent. And M goint to a crime scene like a CSI menber & then interogating a prisoner is flat out retarded.

Seriously, where do you think this movie is "intelligent"? What was the deal with the building that's powered by hydrogen fuel cells? "We'll make this building that keeps exploding!"

And I swear to Christ I want to dick-punch the next person that posts or that I hear say "this is the way Fleming meant Bond to be"! Pick up a damn book & try reading it, instead of just quoting some blurb you read in a magazine by an ignorant critic. Casino Royale is a phenomenal film, this one is a steaming pile of cliche, does not feel like a Bond film & most certainly is nothing like Fleming's Bond.


Your first response to brianluvdvd is very inconsistent. I can understand if you don't like the role given to M by the script - ala CSI on the spot investigation - but to turn that on Judi Dench is unfair that's exactly what you have done. By contrast, you say Bond wasn't very good because he didnt have enough lines to work with. You blame that on the script, but you're letting Craig slide because you know what he's capable of. It's coming across as a double standard for the two.

I thought there were plenty of character moments. Bond continued to show that he's willing to continue his job no matter what he's being told. He can take clues he finds and follow them to their source. I thought it was particularly smart how he waited for the dialogue to unfold and then chime in, which in turn casued them to all get up and identify themselves. Additionally, the progression of the Vesper story was still present. He nicked the picture from the file M had, had the same drink on the plane, was using Mathis as sort of a crutch/reminder, and then in part when Mathis dies it's the beginning of closure. Not to mention the end where he find the boyfriend and finally drops the necklace signifying he's done with revenge. That may have been where the story started, but Bond matured along the way, to the point where revenge was no longer his driving force.

I can understand that you didn't like a lot of the direction and frankly anything I say won't change your mind on that point. And for what it's worth it didn't bother me or take me out of the film.

[Sanjuro37]

I hate people giving Judi Dench shit. She's been hands down the best M of the franchise. It's not her fault if Haggis and the others who wrote the script turned M into a nervous girl on the edge of a breakdown because she couldn't handle the possibility of spies in her spy organization. She did her best, just like all the other stars. If there's anyone you can't blame for this being one of the worst Bond movies ever made, it's the actors.

[chris_sc77]

This was a MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT! This was one of the most lazy, unimpressive action films in a while. I loved Casino ROyale. Best Bond and Bond movie ever IMO.
Quantum Of Solace is easily one of the worst. It doesnt even feel like a full movie. It was ending and I Was like:
"No way that all I get from a Bond film, are you fucking serious?"
which is something I have never said before after a Bond film ending. It was way too short and lacked any substance and originality that CR had. The film comes off as extremely lazy and the filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for rushing to put together a half-assed Bond movie that they put out solely to make money.

[Sessa17]

By contrast, you say Bond wasn't very good because he didnt have enough lines to work with. You blame that on the script, but you're letting Craig slide because you know what he's capable of. It's coming across as a double standard for the two.

I don't like Dench in this role, but the larger problem is the script & her prominent role in this film, being portrayed completely against the mythos of her character, there is a difference b/w "upadating" a character, & just completely re-working a character going against type (crime scene inverstigator) simply to make the movie feel more like other films by adding a story element utterly ripped from another film (having Dench in the exact same role as the Langley team in the Bourne films). This was part of the big picture, & big problem where this movie IMO doesn't feel like a Bond film.

I have the exact same problem with Craig in this movie. It's not a double-standard. It just has a difference, I don't like the actress that plays M, and I like Craig a lot.

But. . . . going by the pole here & the box office results, clearly I'm wrong about all this & this film more than ever, is exactly what the masses want out of the Bond franchise. I just prefer the directory & writers of the last film.

[xage]

Whoa... Was this really budgetted at $230mil?

[Jericho]

I liked it, didn't think it matched Casino Royale obviously, but still very enoyable. I understand the criticisms like the lack of "Bondness" and non-stop action, but I nevertheless ebjoyed it. I liked the touch of the gun barrel at the end.

[mdc3000]

It may have had a SHORTER running time, but I thought this felt LONG as it was, so the short length did not contribute to my displeasure with the movie. (as cranberries suggested... and of course chris sc77 would list the short length as a negative ;) ) but I certainly didn't feel that a shitty Bond movie would have been made better with an extra 20 minutes - it would have just been 20 minutes shittier... I think more character scenes with the chick would maybe have gone a long way, but the other problems would still be there and 75% of them lie with Forester...

[Suprmallet]

I really hope they keep up w/ the Mr. White/Quantum storyline in the next film.

Agreed. And I do think that they're clearly setting up Quantum as a modern day Spectre (although I wish they had kept the name, Spectre sounds so much cooler than Quantum). I also hope that there is someone above Mr. White. He doesn't have the gravitas to pull off a Blofeld, imo.

[Brack]

I have one question. How did Bond make that one boat flip with the anchor? Did I miss something?

[Groucho]

I think this film is highly underrated. It's not as good as Casino Royale, but it's still a solid offering...better than any of the non-Goldeneye Brosnan flicks.

My only complaint is that the action sequences were a mess. Too much close-ups and fast cutting instead of pulling the camera back and showing us what was going on.

[toddly6666]

This James Bond sucked ass! This was one of the most poorly filmed/edited and most boring James Bond film i've ever seen. Excellent acting, but it doesn't make a movie good or even fair. What a shame since Casino Royale is one of the best James Bond films ever. Bring back Martin Campbell again! It's being compared to a Borne movie because people really want to like this film or compare it to a positive action movie. They are just being nice, because even the quick-cut, shaky-cam editing in the Bourne movies are still better than this James Bond flick. The only intense scene in the whole movie was James Bond taking pictures of the criminals in the theater. Great Bond scene, other than that, it's like Foster was trying to make a better film than Campbell's Casino Royale...at least Die Another Day (a bad James Bond film) was more entertaining than this one.

[chris_sc77]

I would rate this either worst Bond film ever or the 2nd worst after Live and Let die.

[Ranger]

I've talked to people today about it and they said to keep in mind that this was right after CR and Vesper's death, so it was understandable if he wasn't in the mood to sleep with another woman so soon.

I'd like to think that QoS was just a short tale while the third film will be 2h45m and about Bond taking down Mr. White once for all - the "real" sequel to CR. :)

[Ranger]

Bring back Martin Campbell again!Definitely. Please, Sony!

[Brack]

I've talked to people today about it and they said to keep in mind that this was right after CR and Vesper's death, so it was understandable if he wasn't in the mood to sleep with another woman so soon.

You must've gone to the bathroom, because there was one scene where.... oh nevermind.

[B5Erik]

First thing's first - the pre credits sequence was garbage. It was hard to follow, used too many tight shots and quick cuts, and wasn't really all that exciting.

As for the movie itself, it's good, but could have been much better had they given it just a few more minutes here and there to breathe. Whenever there was a character moment it was like gold because the movie just screamed out for more of those scenes. The action was OK, but I'd have to say this was the worst job of cinematography and editing in a Bond movie since...well, ever.

Wrong director, wrong director of photography, wrong editor. That part of the movie just did not work.

The story was fine, the acting was fine, but I have to give this one a mixed grade due to the poor technical job done by the guys in charge.

Maybe a director's cut with a few more character scenes will be forthcoming - because this movie sure could use a solid re-edit.

Still, it was entertaining. Quantum of Solace was good, but it could have been, and should have been, better.

[Ranger]

You must've gone to the bathroom, because there was one scene where.... oh nevermind.
Nah, Bond just didn't want Fields to take him back to his mommy - M. :)

[The Bus]

I think this film is highly underrated. It's not as good as Casino Royale, but it's still a solid offering...better than any of the non-Goldeneye Brosnan flicks.

My only complaint is that the action sequences were a mess. Too much close-ups and fast cutting instead of pulling the camera back and showing us what was going on.

rotfl

You've still got it! :up: :lol:

[Suprmallet]

First thing's first - the pre credits sequence was garbage. It was hard to follow, used too many tight shots and quick cuts, and wasn't really all that exciting.

As for the movie itself, it's good, but could have been much better had they given it just a few more minutes here and there to breathe. Whenever there was a character moment it was like gold because the movie just screamed out for more of those scenes. The action was OK, but I'd have to say this was the worst job of cinematography and editing in a Bond movie since...well, ever.

Wrong director, wrong director of photography, wrong editor. That part of the movie just did not work.

The story was fine, the acting was fine, but I have to give this one a mixed grade due to the poor technical job done by the guys in charge.

Maybe a director's cut with a few more character scenes will be forthcoming - because this movie sure could use a solid re-edit.

Still, it was entertaining. Quantum of Solace was good, but it could have been, and should have been, better.

What was wrong with the cinematography? Are you talking about the shot selection? Because to me, that's the director's job. The image itself, which is the purvue of the DP, was always clear. You can certainly lay blame at the director and editor, but the DP didn't do anything wrong.

[B5Erik]

I just didn't like anything about the look of the movie, really. (And the DP has more input into shot selection than you'd think - especially in a Bond movie.)

The movie wasn't all horrible, but it was - for me - the worst job of direction, cinematography, and especially editing of the entire series.

[toddly6666]

I hope they just get an all-round good director for the next Bond movie who has experience filming action. I really hope they aren't pulling the same crap what they did with the Brosnan era. They started Brosnan with a respectable action director - Martin Campbell - then they followed up the three remaining Brosnan films with respectable directors who aren't great action directors (Spottiswoode, Tamouri, Apted).

Realistic (there is no way that Fincher, Danny Boyle, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Zach Snyder would do a Bond film) and respectable directors for the next Bond film that would make an all-around great Bond film - Martin Campbell of course....then comes Doug Liman, Alex Proyas, Alfonso Cuarón, or David Mamet.

[Kal-El]

Saw it this afternoon and I've pretty much forgotten all about it. Nothing memorable, just your run-of-the-mill action flick.

[Ron G]

Okay, so when Bond pulls Mathis out of the SUV, we are to assume that he has already ascertained that his wounds are fatal, and this is why he uses Mathis as a shield for the cops' bullets?

I assumed that Mathis was dead, but then it turns out he is alive. This seems a rather cruel act on Bond's part, no?

[RagingBull80]

Okay, so when Bond pulls Mathis out of the SUV, we are to assume that he has already ascertained that his wounds are fatal, and this is why he uses Mathis as a shield for the cops' bullets?

I assumed that Mathis was dead, but then it turns out he is alive. This seems a rather cruel act on Bond's part, no?
I believe that one of the officers told Bond to pull Mathis out of the trunk and when he did one of the cops said he's still moving and shot Mathis in the back. I don't think Bond was using him as a shield. The cop just shot Mathis while James was holding him up.

I don't get all the hate for this. I understand people can have their own opinions and such but it wasn't that bad. I personally enjoyed the shit out of it and thought it was a worthy follow up to Casino Royale.

[FinkPish]

I saw it this evening and thought it was a worthy addition to the Bond legacy. To me, it was less flawed than certain parts of Casino Royale. It took a while for me to understand what was going on, but once I caught up, I thought it was solid and effective. I wish Fields had a bigger role, but hopefully that actress will get more work because of this movie, because she was a cutie.

[Ron G]

I believe that one of the officers told Bond to pull Mathis out of the trunk and when he did one of the cops said he's still moving and shot Mathis in the back. I don't think Bond was using him as a shield. The cop just shot Mathis while James was holding him up.

I don't get all the hate for this. I understand people can have their own opinions and such but it wasn't that bad. I personally enjoyed the shit out of it and thought it was a worthy follow up to Casino Royale.

Well, I'll say it again. For me, it was the lack of good writing. To many action sequences stitched together, not enough plot. It was what, 99 minutes long, something like that? Another 20 minutes of actual plot with dialogue would have gone a long way.

It wasn't a bad movie, but it could have been a hell of a lot better. There's really no excuse for this.

[Labor]

Well, I'll say it again. For me, it was the lack of good writing. To many action sequences stitched together, not enough plot. It was what, 99 minutes long, something like that? Another 20 minutes of actual plot with dialogue would have gone a long way.

It wasn't a bad movie, but it could have been a hell of a lot better. There's really no excuse for this.
Well it did suffer from the Writers Strike.

I dont know, blame the producers for insisting on releasing it now.

[RagingBull80]

Well, I'll say it again. For me, it was the lack of good writing. To many action sequences stitched together, not enough plot. It was what, 99 minutes long, something like that? Another 20 minutes of actual plot with dialogue would have gone a long way.

It wasn't a bad movie, but it could have been a hell of a lot better. There's really no excuse for this.
I definitely agree that it could have benefited from a slighty longer running time.

[SeekOnce]

I have to echo what others said about the action sequences. You simply couldn't tell what the hell was going on. That beginning car chase was very frustrating to watch since it seemed to have potential. And the whole boat chase and the bit with the anchor, yeah I'm still a little lost on that.

And I know they made a point on forgiveness and all, but I still didn't buy that Mathis was so agreeable on helping. And that long building powered by fuel cells out in the middle of the desert was a bit...odd.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did I see Mr. White in the audience at the opera?

And I've been wondering about this for a while now, but why haven't the producers pursued bigger directors for the 007 films? I know Nolan has mentioned wanting to do one before and I think so has Spielberg. I'm not necessarily saying that either choice would guarantee a good Bond flick but it's been on my mind. I'm guessing it's the money?

[RagingBull80]

Correct me if I am wrong, but did I see Mr. White in the audience at the opera?
He was taking part in the meeting but didn't stand up because he knew what was going on.

[RoboDad]

Well, at the risk of being labeled yet another "follower", I have to say that, for the most part, I echo brianluvdvd's thoughts about the film (but I won't re-quote that post again). I'll just add my own thoughts where I don't exactly agree.

The title sequence graphics weren't horribly bad, but certainly not up to Bond standards, but the title song SUCKED. Big time. Nothing like Casino Royale, which (aside from the lack of babes) is probably the best they've ever done.

I thought the action sequences were stupendously bad, to the point that I eventually stopped watching when they were playing out. There was really no point, since it was impossible to tell what was happening to whom. Extreme close-up flashes of a tire, a gun, a tray of food???, all cut so quickly an jarringly that the only reaction they induce is vomiting, don't exactly draw one into the action. Not to mention the fact that I lost count of home many times they violated the 180 degree rule during these sequences, which only makes it even more difficult to keep the players straight.

I thought the story itself had a lot of potential, but the script and editing did make it into a bit of a muddled mess. To the filmmakers' credit, that make make some people want to see it again, just to try to make some sense out of it. But that's a poor excuse for such film making. And it resulted in the villain being very unsatisfying.

I can't say I am as full of loathing for Judi Dench's M, though. Ever since the scene in Goldeneye when, after reading Bond the riot act (the "mysogenist dinosaur" speech), she hastens to add "...and Bond? Come back alive," revealing her underlying affection for the man, I have enjoyed her take on the character. Of course, it is difficult to reconcile that relationship with the new Bond films, since Goldeneye was meant to introduce the characters to each other, yet now she is his boss when he achieves 00 status. Also, while I agree on principle that M is not supposed to go into the field, I am willing to put that aside in the interest of the story, since even M was at a point where she didn't know whom to trust. She HAD to go to Bolivia herself to confront Bond. And that is the point when she knew he was trustworthy.

Now, with all that said, I am willing to say that I liked the film a lot more than I expected to, and I think I know why. With this story arc complete, and Bond having dealt with his grief, he has emerged a better agent, and can now become more of the Bond that (I think) has been missing from these last two films. I am willing to accept that the filmmakers wanted two films to "build" the character, and to some degree I think they succeeded. There were enough moments where signature elements started to peek through, that I was just barely satisfied with them. Maybe that was the point of having the gun barrel sequence at the end, to indicate that Bond had "arrived".

And, I must say, the Goldfinger nod was very clever (with Oil being the new Gold ;)).

[DJariya]

Well it did suffer from the Writers Strike.

I dont know, blame the producers for insisting on releasing it now.

How did it suffer from the writer's strike? Haggis turned in the 1st draft in November before the strike began and filming began in January and lasted until June. The strike ended in February. I assume Wade and Purvis who were co-credited as writers probably made the necessary revisons once they were allowed on set.

[Giantrobo]

I just saw it tonight and I liked QoS. I liked the dark pissed off hurt Bond working his way through his 'issues'. This film had a lot of Heart. I likes "M" being more than just some old pencil pusher barking orders from her antique desk. I like "M" trying to get Bond to see what he's doing to himself and others around him. I get the feeling that if "M" was 20 or 30 years younger she'd be out kicking some ass. I also liked how both "M", and Mathis in particular, were trying to get Bond to see the Vespa really did love him, and that she didn't betray him for some malicious cause.

I had no problem following the fights and chases like others did; and I thought they came across as particularly brutal...that's the good thing. Are you guys who couldn't follow getting scared and hiding your eyes during these scenes? I mean they're pretty straight forward and I'm not sure what more you want. What if they slowed down all the Bond fights like "300"? Would that make you happy? :p

Finally, my girl Olga Kurylenko was great as Camille and I liked that she wasn't some weak chick just following after Bond.


Opening Sequence...:up:
Title Song...:up:
Fight scenes...:up:
Bond Girl...:up:
"M"....:up:
Mr. White/Quantum as an ongoing problem for Bond and MI6...:up:
Not enough Jeffrey Wright...:down:

[wm lopez]

I would rate this either worst Bond film ever or the 2nd worst after Live and Let die.
You don't consider DIE ANOTHER DAY bad?

[mdc3000]

They started Brosnan with a respectable action director - Martin Campbell - then they followed up the three remaining Brosnan films with respectable directors who aren't great action directors (Spottiswoode, Tamouri, Apted).
.

While I totally agree with your sentiment, Campbell certainly wasn't a respectable action director prior to Goldeneye - dude had only made ONE action flick (No Escape) that wasn't all that great... I'd love to see him back for the next one, but if not, hopefully they'll realize they need to court someone with a flair for action, rather than the dramatic - because you can forgive a Bond movie if the dramatic scenes are slightly off, you CAN'T forgive a Bond movie that has shitty action.

[chris_sc77]

You don't consider DIE ANOTHER DAY bad?

I dont particularly consider it good or bad but at least it is watchable and fun. I would rank Die Another Day FAR ahead of QOS. Die Another DAY was 10 times more impressive than QOS and it even felt like a full fleshed out story no matter how ridiculous the plot was.

[Draven]

I had no problem following the fights and chases like others did; and I thought they came across as particularly brutal...that's the good thing. Are you guys who couldn't follow getting scared and hiding your eyes during these scenes? I mean they're pretty straight forward and I'm not sure what more you want. What if they slowed down all the Bond fights like "300"? Would that make you happy?

I couldn't agree more - I had no problem following the action. In fact, I loved the brutality and lack of explosions in the opening sequence. Two cars chasing him. One smashes into a truck. The other one...Bond finds his moment and fires a couple of shots...sending the other off a cliff. Cold, quick and brutal. I loved it.

So many moments where my wife and I both winced at what was happening to Bond. I love the unstoppable nature of his character, the lack of stupid gadgets, and the actual "spying" that goes on in this world. And I bet this will play even better when I watch it on DVD back to back with Casino Royale

Last night I caught a little bit of Thunderball on TNT...man, I am so glad Bond movies aren't like that anymore.

[toddly6666]

While I totally agree with your sentiment, Campbell certainly wasn't a respectable action director prior to Goldeneye - dude had only made ONE action flick (No Escape) that wasn't all that great... I'd love to see him back for the next one, but if not, hopefully they'll realize they need to court someone with a flair for action, rather than the dramatic - because you can forgive a Bond movie if the dramatic scenes are slightly off, you CAN'T forgive a Bond movie that has shitty action.

Campbell was a respectable action director between GoldenEye and Casino Royale. It's definitely amazing they gave the original gig to him as you said his only action flick before GoldenEye was No Escape (an unimpressive movie).

[Draven]

I have one question. How did Bond make that one boat flip with the anchor? Did I miss something?

He threw the boat's anchor into the water. When it caught, the nose was yanked down and the boat was flipped motor-first into the air.

[devilshalo]

Definitely. Please, Sony!

You'll have to petition MGM, not Sony.

[Brack]

He threw the boat's anchor into the water. When it caught, the nose was yanked down and the boat was flipped motor-first into the air.

Ah, okay, thanks!

[Sanjuro37]

He threw the boat's anchor into the water. When it caught, the nose was yanked down and the boat was flipped motor-first into the air.

Huh, I thought he just popped the thing. I mean, it was a rubber dinghy, and (from what I can tell from the shit editing), he poked it with the anchor's spike rather than threw it and waited for it to catch. I could be wrong; I barely followed any of the action sequences.

[Shannon Nutt]

Aside from the god-awful theme song and the poorly edited action sequences, this was my favorite Bond movie in years. Probably since Dalton's "Licence To Kill" (and yes, I know a lot of you loath that film).

Big :thumbsup: from me. I hope this is an indication of where the series is heading and hope the backlash (primarily the one it's gotten from notable critics) doesn't turn the series back towards gadgets and goofiness.

Also, excellent use of "M" this time around...I hope she gets just as much screen time in future movies. Heck, Judi Dench almost stole the movie away from Craig - she was fantastic!

[devilshalo]

Had "Quantum" been merely another entry in the Bond series, Forster might not have been on the shortlist to direct. But producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson wanted a helmer who could handle the emotional aspects of the film.

That's because longtime Bond writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade intended a multifilm arc that could play across the five films for which Daniel Craig was contracted.

Just wanted to bring up what I posted in the original thread. A 5 FILM STORY ARC. This was a great CONTINUATION of Casino Royale. There was enough character moments in QoS to show Bond's growth as a 00. And this is a great beginning to the exploration of Quantum. In previous films, we got a polished Bond. Craig's Bond is still rough around the edges. The events of Casino Royale left him vulnerable. QoS, he's out to prove a point that he isn't (anymore), but in meeting with Camille, he sees what can happen when you act and not think therefore placing yourself in more jeopardy. There's a fine line they're taking with the development of Bond to turn him into the character we've known.

[MaxMFP]

Just wanted to bring up what I posted in the original thread. A 5 FILM STORY ARC. This was a great CONTINUATION of Casino Royale. There was enough character moments in QoS to show Bond's growth as a 00. And this is a great beginning to the exploration of Quantum. In previous films, we got a polished Bond. Craig's Bond is still rough around the edges. The events of Casino Royale left him vulnerable. QoS, he's out to prove a point that he isn't (anymore), but in meeting with Camille, he sees what can happen when you act and not think therefore placing yourself in more jeopardy. There's a fine line they're taking with the development of Bond to turn him into the character we've known.


Has has already been stated, the character wasn't the problem. The plot being shit is. That Craig's Bond is so watchable is the one and only reason this film works.

[devilshalo]

Has has already been stated, the character wasn't the problem. The plot being shit is. That Craig's Bond is so watchable is the one and only reason this film works.

Why is the plot shit? No one has answered that clearly. Are you not able to follow along? The plot is simple. Finding out who put Vesper in such a predicament in Casino Royale that she dies.

[Brack]

Why is the plot shit? No one has answered that clearly. Are you not able to follow along? The plot is simple. Finding out who put Vesper in such a predicament in Casino Royale that she dies.

Apparently realistic villains and their plots aren't enough for a Bond flick.

[Giantrobo]

Has has already been stated, the character wasn't the problem. The plot being shit is. That Craig's Bond is so watchable is the one and only reason this film works.

The plot was not shit.

[Ron G]

Why is the plot shit? No one has answered that clearly. Are you not able to follow along? The plot is simple. Finding out who put Vesper in such a predicament in Casino Royale that she dies.

And that's not really enough to hang a film on.

[devilshalo]

And that's not really enough to hang a film on.

I give you Lord of the Rings. Take a ring and go destroy it. 3 movies?

[Giantrobo]

And that's not really enough to hang a film on.

Are you serious?

In a nutshell:

Shortly after the events in CR, a grieving man is after the reason for his love's death...a lover who he was ready to give it all up to be with... and stumbles upon a massive plan to rape a South American Nation's resources by a supposedly "Friendly" company, who may be connected to a Mysterious International group(Quantum) who's starting to rear its head and apparently has plans to do all sorts of evil around the world?

That's not enough?

[Ron G]

Are you serious?

In a nutshell:

Shortly after the events in CR, a grieving man is after the reason for his love's death...a lover who he was ready to give it all up to be with... and stumbles upon a massive plan to rape a South American Nation's resources by a supposedly "Friendly" company, who may be connected to a Mysterious International group(Quantum) who's starting to rear its head and apparently has plans to do all sorts of evil around the world?

That's not enough?

Not the way it was presented, no. I was left distinctly unsatisfied when the credits rolled.

[devilshalo]

Not the way it was presented, no. I was left distinctly unsatisfied when the credits rolled.
I left wanting to know more about Quantum and look forward to more Bond films uncovering the organization, but to each his own. I also felt the character grew tremendously in this film, tho people seemed not to have noticed that.

[Giantrobo]

Not the way it was presented, no. I was left distinctly unsatisfied when the credits rolled.

Ok, fair enough. I guess we all took different things from the film and that's just the way it goes.


I left wanting to know more about Quantum and look forward to more Bond films uncovering the organization, but to each his own. I also felt the character grew tremendously in this film, tho people seemed not to have noticed that.

Yep. I'm totally loving this ongoing story Arc. Quantum is more or less scaring the shit out of MI6 and seems to be several steps ahead of them.

[Sanjuro37]

Are you serious?

In a nutshell:

Shortly after the events in CR, a grieving man is after the reason for his love's death...a lover who he was ready to give it all up to be with... and stumbles upon a massive plan to rape a South American Nation's resources by a supposedly "Friendly" company, who may be connected to a Mysterious International group(Quantum) who's starting to rear its head and apparently has plans to do all sorts of evil around the world?

That's not enough?

No, not really. To paraphrase Ebert, it's not what the film is about, its about how it is about it. This could have been a complex film, but its sloppy editing and meandering pacing meant nothing happened. I've spoken to some of my friends about it, all of them intelligent people who know a thing or two about the movies, and a number of them had no idea what Quantum was about after it ended. Granted, I didn't think it was that difficult to follow, but it really doesn't go anywhere.

[Spring Roll]

I read somewhere that Foster left all the action scenes with 2nd unit. The studio wanted to hire somebody who is controllable and has some creds with smaller films; and leave all the action scenes with pros who've done them before.

I remembered a while back that somebody mentioned that they only hire British directors for Bond flicks, is that true?

[Ron G]

I think that part of the problem is the middle film in the trilogy syndrome. You can either choose to make it a strong film on its own merits, or you can make it a film whose strength won't be revealed until all three films are viewed back-to-back.

Perhaps it's the latter that the writers and producers have chosen to do here.

But they could have done the former, and still had a strong story arc.

And they could have done a lot better job of making me feel something for characters other than Bond and M.

[scott1598]

has anyone speculated whether the secret organization that is mentioned is SPECTRE?

[TheMovieman]

has anyone speculated whether the secret organization that is mentioned is SPECTRE?

I believe QUANTUM is basically the 21st century version of SPECTRE.

[Giantrobo]

No, not really. To paraphrase Ebert, it's not what the film is about, its about how it is about it. This could have been a complex film, but its sloppy editing and meandering pacing meant nothing happened. I've spoken to some of my friends about it, all of them intelligent people who know a thing or two about the movies, and a number of them had no idea what Quantum was about after it ended. Granted, I didn't think it was that difficult to follow, but it really doesn't go anywhere.


Well, it wouldn't be the first time I didn't agree with Ebert...or your friends.

[Superman07]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I didn't agree with Ebert...or your friends.

:lol:

When asked what is wrong with the plot, the response is: the editing was crap and I wasn't happy when the film finished.

How's that bad plot? As others have said, Bond continued on a mission to find out more about those connected to Vesper's death, and in turn uncovered a organization that is linked around the world by individuals whos aims are not entirely clear except for their immediate influence in South America and the water supply.

Did I leave wanting more? Yes, but I realized this was part of a larger story and more details will emerge in the next installment. I could say the same for ESB, and most people herald that as the best of the original SW triology.

[scott1598]

I believe QUANTUM is basically the 21st century version of xxxxxx.

it's too bad they couldn't stick with the old name for nostalgia's sake.

[RATRUNICK]

I posted my review of Quantum of Solace (which I wrote entirely in MS Paint!) on my blog over here:

Link
(http://swritersleague.blogspot.com/2008/11/mspaint-movie-review-quantum-of-solace.html)

Please check it out if you have a chance! I mean, it's MS Paint, guys!

But, yeah - loved the movie. Just as much as Casino Royale. I'll sacrifice a bit of plot not to have a half-boiled love story jammed down my throat.

[B.A.]

I like this film even more as I think back on it.

[Superman07]

I hadn't seen this mentioned anywhere: Not so, says Forster. Aside from a 45-second sequence involving Craig, everything that was scripted ended up in the movie. "I just wanted this to be a much shorter film. Casino Royale was way too long for my taste; that poker game was really slow, so I wanted to make this a really tight and fast film. It should be like a bullet."

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/A-Quantum-leap.4643021.jp

[PopcornTreeCt]

Yikes. I hope Forster has his flame suit on for a comment like that. The poker game had one of the most suspenseful sequences in any of the Bond films.

[Son of Odin]

even the booze i snuck into the theater couldn't make this movie enjoyable. for all the brosnan haters, die another day was better than this pos. besides having not an ounce of charisma, charm, or incapable of being suave, craig feels more like a hitman than a MI:6 operative. the plot, a whole movie dedicated to finding out vesper's killer. yawn. craig killing everyone is so not believable. I thought the reboot of this franchise was supposed to bring more realism to the bond franchise. seriously, bond being able to out-manuever a fighter plane with a cargo plane. taking on an army by himself? bond is about sneaking his way to the main villain not about being rambo. the ending was ridiculous, mr. green walks into the desert to flee when he was capable to jump into a vehicle ala bond and get away. for someone to say this was the best bond film since license to kill. no. goldeneye got it right and imo is the best bond film to date or top three. I'm still in disbelief that bond actually took out a fighter pilot. laughable. I agree what most critics had to say about this movie being a ripoff of a bourne movie. the apartment fight was almost an exact replica of one of the bourne fight sequences.

[Ranger]

I like this film even more as I think back on it.
I like the story more when I think about it. I might consider getting the dvd but what's the way to go about the openng credits: fast-foward or mute?

The opera house was good. Did anyone not enjoy that part?

[Giantrobo]

it's too bad they couldn't stick with the old name for nostalgia's sake.

Yeah! And they should be demanding 1 Million dollars.

[FinkPish]

Yikes. I hope Forster has his flame suit on for a comment like that. The poker game had one of the most suspenseful sequences in any of the Bond films.

I agree with him actually; I thought the poker game was ridiculous in its final execution. There was no skill involved in the final hand, just the luckiest draw of cards anyone has ever seen for 4 players. In fact, there was no skill involved in nearly all of the poker game, yet they set up Bond as the best poker player in MI:6, able to read players and bluff his way through any situation, and then never used any of that setup. That and the stalled plot at the end of the movie were the weakest parts of Casino Royale. But as a reboot, it was effective otherwise.

[PopcornTreeCt]

I agree with him actually; I thought the poker game was ridiculous in its final execution. There was no skill involved in the final hand, just the luckiest draw of cards anyone has ever seen for 4 players. In fact, there was no skill involved in nearly all of the poker game, yet they set up Bond as the best poker player in MI:6, able to read players and bluff his way through any situation, and then never used any of that setup. That and the stalled plot at the end of the movie were the weakest parts of Casino Royale. But as a reboot, it was effective otherwise.

Well, I was referring to the poisoning scene. :)

[FinkPish]

Well, I was referring to the poisoning scene. :)

No problem, but my complaint still stands.

[Suprmallet]

Just wanted to bring up what I posted in the original thread. A 5 FILM STORY ARC. This was a great CONTINUATION of Casino Royale. There was enough character moments in QoS to show Bond's growth as a 00. And this is a great beginning to the exploration of Quantum. In previous films, we got a polished Bond. Craig's Bond is still rough around the edges. The events of Casino Royale left him vulnerable. QoS, he's out to prove a point that he isn't (anymore), but in meeting with Camille, he sees what can happen when you act and not think therefore placing yourself in more jeopardy. There's a fine line they're taking with the development of Bond to turn him into the character we've known.

If that's true, than this film didn't do what it should have done. The second act of a five act story is rising action. This felt like falling action. What did we really get from this movie? The name Quantum. That's it. We already knew there was an organization. We already knew MI6 knew nothing about them. At the end, Bond alludes to getting a bunch of info from Greene. Do we hear any of that info? No. Quantum of Solace is a footnote to Casino Royale. It almost feels like an ancillary product that the studio cooks up to bridge the events of the first film to the events of the second. Honestly, couldn't you see this being a novel or a video game that takes place between Casino Royale and the unnamed third Craig film? I can.

Does that mean I hated it? No. For the most part, I enjoyed it. But after Casino Royale, which dealt with both the epic (worldwide terrorism) and the personal (Vesper), it feels like things have been scaled back for Quantum of Solace. And that can't help but feel disappointing. On the other hand, there are a lot of things to like in the movie. But when you take the threadbare plot, and combine it with the spotty action (I liked the escape from the bar in South America, the plane sequence, and the final fight, but the action between the opening and the Opera was awful), you get a less than satisfying all around Bond film. Especially coming off of Casino Royale. And saying it's part of a larger story doesn't excuse it from being not as good as the last movie. The problem, in my mind, is with Forster. A better action director could have turned this into an above average Bond movie into a great Bond movie.

[RagingBull80]

The opera house was good. Did anyone not enjoy that part?
I think that everyone pretty much agrees that the opera scene was pretty awesome.

I just got done watching Casino Royale for the 4th or 5th time and I'm ready to see Quantum again.

[Grubert]

Honestly, couldn't you see this being a novel or a video game that takes place between Casino Royale and the unnamed third Craig film? I can.


Or a Heroes online comic-book. :)

[Superman07]

I agree as well. I really felt the opera scene was one of the best parts of the film.

[devilshalo]

If that's true, than this film didn't do what it should have done. The second act of a five act story is rising action. This felt like falling action. What did we really get from this movie? The name Quantum. That's it. We already knew there was an organization. We already knew MI6 knew nothing about them. At the end, Bond alludes to getting a bunch of info from Greene. Do we hear any of that info? No. Quantum of Solace is a footnote to Casino Royale. It almost feels like an ancillary product that the studio cooks up to bridge the events of the first film to the events of the second. Honestly, couldn't you see this being a novel or a video game that takes place between Casino Royale and the unnamed third Craig film? I can.

Does that mean I hated it? No. For the most part, I enjoyed it. But after Casino Royale, which dealt with both the epic (worldwide terrorism) and the personal (Vesper), it feels like things have been scaled back for Quantum of Solace. And that can't help but feel disappointing. On the other hand, there are a lot of things to like in the movie. But when you take the threadbare plot, and combine it with the spotty action (I liked the escape from the bar in South America, the plane sequence, and the final fight, but the action between the opening and the Opera was awful), you get a less than satisfying all around Bond film. Especially coming off of Casino Royale. And saying it's part of a larger story doesn't excuse it from being not as good as the last movie. The problem, in my mind, is with Forster. A better action director could have turned this into an above average Bond movie into a great Bond movie.

What's wrong with this being the Matrix Reloaded of the series? This is a film that establishes more personal growth in Bond. You really get this when he's talking with Camille in the sink hole. He crosses paths with someone very similar to himself and realizes how reckless both of them have been thus far. It also helped to further his relationships with Felix and M. It exposed how vulnerable MI6 is and how far up the chain Quantum is connected. In Casino, it was just Vesper, but now we see it's deep inside MI6 as well as being in bed with top government officials. That's why M is on edge. And as for Greene's interrogation, I would assume that he gave up what Bond already uncovered about their water operation, he can always debrief Camille. Greene and Le Chiffre are not necessarily small fish, but they are only small parts of what Quantum's organization is.. I would think the next step is to find Mr. White, who I don't believe is the head of Quantum, but he's a larger facilitator that's overseeing the small fish.

[Brack]

I think this is another case of people loving a film so much that the sequel will inevitably be trashed by many, the exception being a film like The Dark Knight. As much as I liked Casino Royale, I think it was a bit overrated. Yeah, it's the best Bond film in years, but how great can a Bond film ever really get? Maybe I shouldn't look at it from that perspective, but I think Casino Royale, while it redefined Bond, wasn't exactly earth-shattering excitement. They're fun movies, but come on.

[Superman07]

Two observation on M's role in this one I just thought of. While some are calling her "changed" M role as CSI-esque consider the following.

1) The initial meeting with Mr. White was a high value target that was presumedly linked to whoever just stole all of the money from the poker game (and possibly something larger). I can see how homeoffice was on her to find the money, which might compell her to investiagte the matter first hand.

2) The rest of the meetings I can also see why she'd need to go in person. Not only had she been betrayed by a mole in her organizaton, but she was getting pressure from the foreign office. "Don't worry, my people assure me..."; I think not. Not to mention it appears that Bond may too have gone rogue. I don't think she's at the point where she can trust anybody else to look into such a matter. This is all summed up by their conversation on trust after he takes out the elevator crowd.

[Geofferson]

I like the story more when I think about it. I might consider getting the dvd but what's the way to go about the openng credits: fast-foward or mute?

The opera house was good. Did anyone not enjoy that part?
That was my first comment and primary take-away after seeing this -- the opera scene was a very well-staged segment (the movie needed more of them).

I definitely plan on checking QoS out a second time -- not sure if I'll like it more or less (had a mediocre reaction after the first viewing).

[joeblow69]

What I really need to know is this ..... Do we get to see Bond in a speedo again?

[Solid Snake PAC]

what? :sad:

[Shannon Nutt]

I like the story more when I think about it. I might consider getting the dvd but what's the way to go about the openng credits: fast-foward or mute?


Mute it and play "You Know My Name" over it - it will make this sequel feel even more like a contiuation of CASINO ROYALE.

[hapgilmore]

This movie nearly defines mediocrity. The action scenes were shot and edited TERRIBLY! You couldn't tell what the hell was happening! The story was Meh and the movie as a whole was Meh. Daniel Craig is a good Bond, much better than Pierce "I suck at acting" Brosnan. 2 stars out of 4.

[toddly6666]

What's wrong with this being the Matrix Reloaded of the series? This is a film that establishes more personal growth in Bond.

Matrix Reloaded had at least the most amazing DVD demo action scenes. Quantum is one big blurry mish-mosh. Quantum is not Empire Strikes Back, Godfather 2, Bourne 2, Two Towers...it's just a Meh film with wasted talent. Their is no growth in this film - if personal growth is sulking, barely have any dialogue, and getting pissed off, then your perception of characters being developed on film is very generous...movies that are in the middle of some trilogy should ALWAYS stand on their own. If the next one is a better film, I would watch this trilogy starting with Casino Royale, skip Quantum, and then watch the third one.

And the side Ukranian Bolivian chick actress was more developed in Xavier Gen's HITMAN (much more entertaining than QUANTUM).

[devilshalo]

Their is no growth in this film - if personal growth is sulking, barely have any dialogue, and getting pissed off, then your perception of characters being developed on film is very generous...
Bond starts off on a personal vendetta. This comes right after the person he loved betrayed him and and he wants some payback on those that turned Vesper against him. His big turn in attitude was the sink hole conversation with Camille (as well as his last conversation with her when he states that "the dead don't care about revenge.") And in the end, he didn't kill Vesper's lover, which is basically his main goal. Everything else he uncovered about Quantum is just a side issue. He started out the whole movie just killing everyone without so much as an afterthought. He didn't care about himself at that point and was just as self destructive as Camille in completing their one personal goal. By the end, that view had changed.

This is what I took away from the film, sorry if it seems that people needed cut and dry, hit you over the head clues that say "LOOK, THIS IS A CHARACTER MOMENT SO PAY ATTENTION!"

[Giantrobo]

Great post Devilshalo. :up:

Yeah I think you're right about Quantum/Green all being a side issue or the "MacGuffin" for the movie with Bond's growth as a human/Agent and him realizing what others had been saying about Vespa loving him being the <i>real</i> story.

I guess I can see where Old School Bond fans might not like this. I think down the line people will look back with an appreciation of Craig's Bond.

[wm lopez]

even the booze i snuck into the theater couldn't make this movie enjoyable. for all the brosnan haters, die another day was better than this pos. besides having not an ounce of charisma, charm, or incapable of being suave, craig feels more like a hitman than a MI:6 operative. the plot, a whole movie dedicated to finding out vesper's killer. yawn. craig killing everyone is so not believable. I thought the reboot of this franchise was supposed to bring more realism to the bond franchise. seriously, bond being able to out-manuever a fighter plane with a cargo plane. taking on an army by himself? bond is about sneaking his way to the main villain not about being rambo. the ending was ridiculous, mr. green walks into the desert to flee when he was capable to jump into a vehicle ala bond and get away. for someone to say this was the best bond film since license to kill. no. goldeneye got it right and imo is the best bond film to date or top three. I'm still in disbelief that bond actually took out a fighter pilot. laughable. I agree what most critics had to say about this movie being a ripoff of a bourne movie. the apartment fight was almost an exact replica of one of the bourne fight sequences.

Craig is made too look to much like a bodyguard,thug, hitman.
And I think that is being done since it's the beginning of Bond. By the next movie I hope to see some more charm in his charcater. Maybe grow his hair a little longer and tone down the pics.

[Superman07]

Did everybody forget the line from CR, "So you want me to be half monk, half hitman."?

[Snowmaker]

Decent Bond film. It should have been titled Casino Royale 2 though, since it was really a sequel. The action sequences were way too choppy and close-up though.

And of course the chick all covered in oil was a direct homage to the one in Goldfinger all painted in gold, right down to the angles.

http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/dvd/aplus/007/600/goldfinger_2_600.jpg

And I was mad that they eliminated the traditional "gun barrel view shot" from the beginning, and even more mad when they stuck it at the end just before the credits. :mad:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/8239/tldgunbarrelxs8.gif

[PopcornTreeCt]

^^ Except Craig's Bond is more cold and wouldn't touch her.

[Snowmaker]

Also, I couldn't stop staring at the zit in the middle of Judi Dench's forehead the entire movie.

[Suprmallet]

^^ Except Craig's Bond is more cold and wouldn't touch her.

He'd get oil all over his hands. Where's your head?

[B5Erik]

I'm surprised no one mentioned the homage to The Spy Who Loved Me.

The guy hanging on to Bond's tie while almost falling over the edge of the rooftop, and then Bond just swats his tie and the guy falls.

[Snowmaker]

I'm surprised no one mentioned the homage to The Spy Who Loved Me.

The guy hanging on to Bond's tie while almost falling over the edge of the rooftop, and then Bond just swats his tie and the guy falls.

Oh yeah. I thought that seemed familiar.

[SPRBD]

Bond starts off on a personal vendetta. This comes right after the person he loved betrayed him and and he wants some payback on those that turned Vesper against him. His big turn in attitude was the sink hole conversation with Camille (as well as his last conversation with her when he states that "the dead don't care about revenge.") And in the end, he didn't kill Vesper's lover, which is basically his main goal. Everything else he uncovered about Quantum is just a side issue. He started out the whole movie just killing everyone without so much as an afterthought. He didn't care about himself at that point and was just as self destructive as Camille in completing their one personal goal. By the end, that view had changed.

This is what I took away from the film, sorry if it seems that people needed cut and dry, hit you over the head clues that say "LOOK, THIS IS A CHARACTER MOMENT SO PAY ATTENTION!"

I totally agree! Although there was a ton of great(!) action in this film, the movie was all about the evolution of Bond's character. I thought it was top-notch.

[fumanstan]

I saw this in the morning and voted a mixed reaction. I never really watched any of the Bond films before Casino Royale (which I blind bought on Blu-ray) and after enjoying the hell out of Casino Royale, I was a bit underwhelmed with this one. I didn't really read many reviews or this thread until after seeing it today, and the very first thing that I noticed with the opening action scene was the terrible editing. What looked like a great car chase ended up being a jumbled mess, and it sucks that it continued throughout the movie (although the final sequence in the building wasn't as bad).

The plot was a bit hokey as I don't think they did as good a job introducing characters, and I got a little confused when they started talking about how Bond killed the guy's bodyguard. I wish they took a little more time with Camille, because I thought she was fantastic and interesting. Parts of the movie felt really fragmented to, with Bond jumping to cities and countries all over and starting up another action sequence. Maybe that was just me.

I actually liked the opening song, and since I have no point of reference about the M character, I liked Dench. Overall I liked the movie, but it wasn't nearly as good as Casino Royale.

[emachine]

I enjoyed it just as much as Casino Royale.

[The Bus]

Yikes. I hope Forster has his flame suit on for a comment like that. The poker game had one of the most suspenseful sequences in any of the Bond films.

There was more tension, suspense and excitement in Campbell's poker sequence than in the entirety of Forster's film. Not until the other day when I saw the back of the BD case did I notice Casino Royale is two-and-a-half hours long. Quantum of Solace is an hour shorter but is more difficult to sit through than CR.

[fumanstan]

I'd say, like was mentioned earlier, that he's referring to the actual poker playing sequences themselves, not what happens in between (the poisoning). I didn't think the actual game was set up very well either (something like Maverick was more interesting to me).

I thought Casino went on a bit long but that's party due to the "multiple ending syndrome" where it looked like things were wrapping up and then continued on for 15 more minutes.

As a side note, I think I now need to see Hitman for more of Olga.

[Brack]

I didn't think the card game in CS was that exciting, especially when Mathis kept chiming in with how much was in the pot. C'mon, we can see how many chips people put in, and how little chips were left between all the players.

[Dashed]

I'm a huge bond fan and have seen all the movies. I must have missed it and will have to catch it next time I see the movie but, In the end when Bond drops the necklace in the snow. Is it because he realized that she didn't really love him and she used him? Or is it the other way around and that she really did love him? I never really caught which way his reaction was.

[riley_dude]

What I really need to know is this ..... Do we get to see Bond in a speedo again?
Or a naked torture scene?

[Brack]

I'm a huge bond fan and have seen all the movies. I must have missed it and will have to catch it next time I see the movie but, In the end when Bond drops the necklace in the snow. Is it because he realized that she didn't really love him and she used him? Or is it the other way around and that she really did love him? I never really caught which way his reaction was.

I thought it was because the necklace turned out to be a fraudulent type of gift. He guy used her, and gives the same necklaces out to his other victims. Maybe Bond thought Vesper would be offended and that's why he threw it away.

[RocShemp]

It's about letting go of the past. In Casino Royale Bond notes that Vesper is no longer wearing the necklace. She says that she's realized that sometimes you can let go of the past. Bond dropping the necklace signifies that he's (finally) moving on. He's forgiven Vesper and himself.

I guess that's why the gunbarrel appears in the end. He strayed from the path as it were and was no longer Bond. He was a man consumed by revenge. Once he accepted what happened, he was no longer torturing himself and he is back to being Bond.

[rexinnih]

Saw this yesterday and on a whole, enjoyed it very much. At first was only so-so on it but at the end, looked back and thought it was a fine movie. It's good to see the mistakes and learning Bond did in this and Casino Royal. Interesting to see the next one and where they go with it.

[mdc3000]

Hey guys, <s>I have a code for 2 free tix to Quantum of Solace (bought my James Bond blu-rays from Amazon and the codes don't work in canada - I wasted one finding that out). If someone on here wants the double pass code, PM me. First come first served.</s> GONE

Also, the one I wasted as a test, I used a buffalo postal code 10038 - so if you live in that region I can send you this other double pass, you'll just have to pose as my alias :P

[flyboy]

Just as I was getting back into Bond again after Casino they come up with this stinker! Terrible film...what a huge letdown.

[Zen Peckinpah]

Not understanding any hate for this one. As someone who thought Casino Royale was on its way to masterpiece territory before is disorienting and frankly boring third act, I thought Quantum of Solace was a better film in terms of structure and the continuity and/or length didn't bother at all. This is probably the most badass film they've done since Licence to Kill IMO. Shaky-cam action for this fit in the sense that the action is supposed to be a clusterfuck, but I still miss the old days. Had a very Tony Scott-esque vibe, and I mean that in a good way (the Man on Fire parallels were interesting, as was the Camille/Merano fight which reminded me of the Alabama/Virgil brawl from True Romance).

I will admit though, that as great and hard boiled I found it I found myself snickering at the "badass" moments, but it didn't bother me because of how fun it was. Here's my plot summary of this movie if you don't care to see it:

Bent on revenge, Bond goes to Italy. He kills people.

Bond goes to Haiti. He kills more people.

Bond goes to Austria. He kills somebody.

Bond goes back to Italy, recruits old co-worker, doesn't kill anybody.

Bond goes to Bolivia. Along with an insanely hot woman, he kills multiple people, lets a desk agent get killed, and strands the main bad guy in the desert.

Bond goes to Russia. Someone gets shot. The movie ends.
---------------------
Also, so what if he didn't directly kill Greene? I actually thought it was cooler to strand him in the middle of the desert, and the can of motor oil was even more awesome.

So yeah, I dug it immensely. Sign me up for the next one. If they can please contact Tony Scott or Shane Black, I'd be in heaven.

[PopcornTreeCt]

I thought the film was pretty good but anti-climactic. He didn't kill Vespa's boyfriend at the end. I guess it was good to show Bond isn't about revenge. I wonder if that guy will be the bad guy in the next one? For that matter anyone have any ideas what the next movie will be about?

[GizmoDVD]

Did they just cut the scene with Bond in the desert with the huge gun being shown in all the previews or did I fall asleep?

[Dr Mabuse]

I thought the film was pretty good but anti-climactic. He didn't kill Vespa's boyfriend at the end. I guess it was good to show Bond isn't about revenge. I wonder if that guy will be the bad guy in the next one? For that matter anyone have any ideas what the next movie will be about?

You missed a considerable plot point at the end of the movie.

[Ron G]

Not to be pedantic, but a Vespa is a motor scooter.

Vesper is the Bond character (and the subsequent cocktail, which is quite good).

[PopcornTreeCt]

You missed a considerable plot point at the end of the movie.

You mind letting me know what I missed then?

And yes, it's Vesper. My mistake. :)

[Ron G]

You mind letting me know what I missed then?

And yes, it's Vesper. My mistake. :)


You weren't the only one in this thread. As a former mod and someone who really liked the novel and the film *and* who has made a few Vespers in his time (the drinks, not Eva Green, though I wouldn't say no), I think I was uniquely positioned to notice it.

[Dr Mabuse]

You mind letting me know what I missed then?

MAJOR SPOILERS: don't click unless you mean it.

He, Greene/the boyfreind was found dead in the desert with a stomach full of the motor oil left for him by Bond with the line 'I'll bet you make it 20 miles before you consider drinking that'. Which was left as a sort of symmetry since the girl who was dead in Bond's bed was submerged in oil and had it in her lungs and stomach. He was shot to death, as Bond had reminded that his friends would be looking for him as he left him in the desert. So though bond didn't kill Greene, he set him up to be killed and to drink oil just like the girl sent to bring Bond in had done in her death. M told Bond about this right at the end of a the film when she explained she was surprised he hadn't killed him. M had accused him of being out for vengeance and he told her he was doing his duty, so this kind of wrapped up that theme up in the film.

[chris_sc77]

First to PM me will get a code for a free ticket (up to ($10.50) to see this movie.
UPDATE: ticket is gone.

[Ranger]

MAJOR SPOILERS: don't click unless you mean it.

He, Greene/the boyfreind was found dead in the desert with a stomach full of the motor oil left for him by Bond with the line 'I'll bet you make it 20 miles before you consider drinking that'. Which was left as a sort of symmetry since the girl who was dead in Bond's bed was submerged in oil and had it in her lungs and stomach. He was shot to death, as Bond had reminded that his friends would be looking for him as he left him in the desert. So though bond didn't kill Greene, he set him up to be killed and to drink oil just like the girl sent to bring Bond in had done in her death. M told Bond about this right at the end of a the film when she explained she was surprised he hadn't killed him. M had accused him of being out for vengeance and he told her he was doing his duty, so this kind of wrapped up that theme up in the film.

I'm confused about Greene:
He drank the oil but didn't die from that, but his friends showed up and shot him. Seemed like it'd make more sense if he died just from drinking the oil.
and about Bond's revenge:
I thought that Bond left Yusef alive, because he figures that either Quantum or the Canadian agent would kill him.

[mdc3000]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure DrMabuse, that other people were referring to the fact that Bond didn't kill Yusef, not that he didn't kill Greene - because he sure as hell got his, but Yusef, we're left wondering what his fate will be, because Bond decides NOT to kill him.

[Abob Teff]

I give you Lord of the Rings. Take a ring and go destroy it. 3 movies?

The walking ... you forgot about the walking!

[PopcornTreeCt]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure DrMabuse, that other people were referring to the fact that Bond didn't kill Yusef, not that he didn't kill Greene - because he sure as hell got his, but Yusef, we're left wondering what his fate will be, because Bond decides NOT to kill him.

Exactly. Greene wasn't Vesper's boyfriend.

[Mr. Salty]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure DrMabuse, that other people were referring to the fact that Bond didn't kill Yusef, not that he didn't kill Greene - because he sure as hell got his, but Yusef, we're left wondering what his fate will be, because Bond decides NOT to kill him.

I don't know that we're left wondering about Yusef. I assume Bond left him alive so MI6 could interrogate him about QUANTUM, since he was working for them.

[thecrackedjack2]

Well, it looks to be still at a respectable 65% at RT. Definitely agree with it not being better than CR, but still one the best Bond movies of the last 25 years.

[Original Desmond]

Look it wasnt a bad movie at all, quite enjoyable, but just didn't feel like an epic James Bond movie. I know it's harder nowadays than the 60s and 70s what with the bar being raised so high for action movies in general, but still, the villian lacked any epic nature to him, just some swarmy little git. No epic henchmen. Story wasn't particularly exciting.

Good to see Bond still has his Parkour skills. There were some decent action sequences

Daniel Craig has a crapload of potential in the role. Let's hope he is really given a Bond vehicle to shine in.

[d2cheer]

Title song was so bad I had to cover my ears. Easily one of the worst ever for a bond flick.

This was just a meh for me. Not the worst, Moonraker still holds that title, and not better than the average ones either.

I actuallyfound myself bored and waiting for it to get over and it felt a lot longer than it was.

Just did feel like a Bond flick overall... hope they get back to some of the "basics" that have come to love in them.

[metaridley]

(This is part of a review I wrote for the movie, in case some of you may be wondering about the more formal style.)


Compared to Casino Royale, this latest entry is a huge disappointment. What's more, it's underwhelming. A Bond film should never be underwhelming.

Unlike most, I thought Quantum of Solace was pretty decent. Although it needed to slice out three-fourths of the action, replace it with plot and bump up the running time to about 2 hours, I wasn't pissed off at the end result. To quote Craig in CR, "Suppose that's something."

As well, so many people complained about the film's "shaky cam". The action sequences are indeed ineptly shot but they're not that hard to follow. The problem is there's so many of them that it starts to get ridiculous. Apparently the producers/director/screenwriters/whoever felt that five full minutes of dialogue might bore the audience so it would need to be punctuated by car chases, foot chases, fisticuffs, speed boating and DC3 shootouts.

They replaced Peter Lamont, production designer on the series since 1981's For Your Eyes Only and Daniel Kleinman, main titles designer since 1995's Goldeneye with two far less talented individuals. The film looks cheap in places (despite this being the most expensive installment of all) and the faux-retro opening credits are terrible. Even more excruciating is the Jack White/Alicia Keys song 'Another Way To Die' which - along with 1974's 'The Man With The Golden Gun' - represents the nadir of the Bond themes.

This script was handed in juuuuuust before the writer's strike deadline and it shows (why no one felt compelled to tinker with it after the strike is beyond me). The plot is insignificant (stealing Bolivia's water supply - ZOMG!) and the roles are underwritten. Sadly, this even includes Daniel Craig's.

Camille and "Strawberry" Fields (whose ultimate fate is a strange homage to 1964's Goldfinger) are two of the least memorable Bond girls. Although Mathieu Amalric plays Dominic Greene with bug-eyed sleaze, his character especially would have benefited from being fleshed out. Still, he's a great villain and perhaps the only part of the movie that had a lasting impact on me.

There's a shootout intercut with an opera that resembles the finale of The Godfather Part III and yet proves quite effective.

Unfortunately, QoS has perhaps the dumbest final area of any Bond movie: Perla De Las Lunas. This is a giant, vacant hotel nonsensically located in the middle of the desert. What's more, it's powered by fuel cells instead of solar energy. Fuel cells that apparently explode with the ignition of the smallest spark. It's like the Hindenburg on land. It makes even less sense than that laughable giant cargo jet in Die Another Day.

To its credit, the movie moves along at a relatively brisk pace, David Arnold once again turns in a haunting score (which inexplicably doesn't use the Bond theme) and Daniel Craig remains an excellent Bond. If only he had more to work with this time around.

There's also a death scene that I found very moving. That it affected me more than the resolution of the Vesper subplot (which I loved in CR) is an unforgivable mistake.

[jjcool]

Just "meh" for me as well. Following Casion Royale was tough, CR was one of, if not, the best bond movie sof the alst 25 years. Quantum was nowhere near this. In fact I would say it was closer to the bottom of the barrell. Not a terrible film, just not as good as it should have been.

[Giles]

wow, and I thought 'Die Another Day' was bad, oh this was just joyless... filmmaking by rote... the script hardly made any sense, chases galore but badly edited. On the huge Uptown theatre screen the action scenes looked sloppy and motion sickness inducing. No gadgets, not enough Bond babes, no humour.... Marc Forster and the writers should all be royally horse whipped for making such a lacklustre Bond film.

[toddly6666]

the most annoying thing about Quantum of Solace being so bad is that it brought a bit more respect to Tomorrow Never Dies, The Wold is Not Enough, and Die Another Day, because as cheesy and bad as those were, at least those three were all more or less entertaining...Just because Quantum of Solace is a "serious" film, it doesn't make it any better film than a "cheesy" film. I think people are giving slightly extra credit to this film just because it was "serious." That's nice and flattering, but Quantum "seriously" sucked.

[asianxcore]

Thought the film was entertaining but I couldn't fight the fact that I felt disappointed.

I still love Daniel Craig as Bond, but the film fell flat on many occasions. The action scenes being filmed like the camera was in a washing machine was annoying.

Also at this point I'm hoping the next Bond villain will be a "cool" Bond villain, one that actually plays off Bond. Dominic Greene was just "meh".

Other than that there were a lot of fun action scenes in the movie, funny lines, and Craig was fantastic. Loved the "Goldfinger" reference.

Just hoping Marc Forster isn't asked to do another film.

[wm lopez]

I don't know if this was already answered but wasn't Al Pacino going to be in this movie?

[Catch 21]

Marc Forster can't shoot action for shit. The action scenes tried to emulate the tight, tense and fast pace of the Bourne series, but YOU COULD HARDLY TELL WHAT WAS HAPPENING because there were no LONG SHOTS... We never get the geography of the action sequences, therefore the stuff that is supposed to thrill and be exciting feels like no big deal.

I really think the action scenes were a HUGE letdown - they are great in concept and a few shots (like in the trailer) really WOW you, but as a whole, they just DON'T WORK. They're confusing, muddled and in desperate need of wider shots where we can see what is happening.

The cast does what they can, but we never get invested in Olga's character (hell, I don't even recall her name and I just saw it 20 minutes ago), I feel like they must have cut some character development stuff to quicken the pace, which felt sluggish anyhow. Greene and Quantum are shitty villains and the last scene was predictable and a letdown.... don't give us a rough, no holds barred James Bond only to cut his balls off in the last scene... Certainly not the worst Bond movie, but after Casino Royale, this is a HUGE disappointment. Thank God Forster isn't back for the next one...maybe they can get a director who knows how to make action sequences EXCITING and raise the stakes so we actually feel a sense of danger and urgency...or at the very least, give us something FUN.

FUCK.


Everything, what this guy said. If you liked the action sequences, that's because you used your imagination to fill in gaps. The actions scenes were unwatchable. I dont want to see shoes and legs only during a fight sequence.

[Brack]

Nah, I have very keen senses.

[DeFan]

Would it better if it was treated as say...an Action film cuz that's what it feels like. I mean it's a Bond film but from the reviews it sounds like a good action film, not a good Bond film. Does that make any sense?

My thoughts too, except I didn't really like the action parts. After the first car case I kind of gave up watching them knowing Bond would always win. That and puzzling over Camille's peeling sunburn:). BTW, why was he driving down into the quarry?

[PopcornTreeCt]

I don't know if this was already answered but wasn't Al Pacino going to be in this movie?

Yeah, that was the rumor but that apparently wasn't true. I'd love to see Al Pacino as the head guy of The Organization.

Also, I think it would be really cool if they brought Sean Bean back to reprise his role as 006.

[RoyalTea]

did anybody have trouble understanding some of the dialogue? perhaps the theater's sound system was screwed up, but I found it very difficult to understand some of the actors.

one thing i just didn't get was why was Greene so interested in being the major utility company in Bolivia? How much money and power can really be gained by controlling the water supply of a country ranked around 100 in GDP? Or was this supposed to show that Quantum is still in its infancy and the evil organization needs to do lots of stupid little things like this before really being able to unleash havoc on the world?

[wm lopez]

Yeah, that was the rumor but that apparently wasn't true. I'd love to see Al Pacino as the head guy of The Organization.

Also, I think it would be really cool if they brought Sean Bean back to reprise his role as 006.

Thanks! Sure seemed it was true at the time the way people were talking about it.

[MinLShaw]

one thing i just didn't get was why was Greene so interested in being the major utility company in Bolivia? How much money and power can really be gained by controlling the water supply of a country ranked around 100 in GDP? Or was this supposed to show that Quantum is still in its infancy and the evil organization needs to do lots of stupid little things like this before really being able to unleash havoc on the world?

"'Tis better to reign in Hell,
than to serve in Heaven"

Here's an idea, though, about Quantum. What always confused me about SPECTRE is that when we first meet them, they seem to be nearly limitless in resources. I got the sense that they had concurrent operations running all the time. Then, after You Only Live Twice, it was really just Blofeld and his thugs. I realize this was largely due to the court battles over the characters and situations, but it still left the organization looking lame.

Perhaps we'll discover that Greene's operation in Bolivia was concurrent to some other similar power grabs for control over water or other natural resources. Or, for that matter, that the control over the water was really just the first step in controlling the entire government--recall, if you will, the way in which Greene completely manhandled the would-be ruling general?

Either way, controlling the water in Bolivia was just a piece of the puzzle, methinks.