Definitely. Please, Sony!

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

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.

Nah, Bond just didn't want Fields to take him back to his mommy - M.

You've still got it!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I definitely agree that it could have benefited from a slighty longer running time.

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?

He was taking part in the meeting but didn't stand up because he knew what was going on.

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 ).

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.

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?

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

You don't consider DIE ANOTHER DAY bad?

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.

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.

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.

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).