Yes, the action scenes really suck. They are erratic and make little logical sense. But does anyone else love the fact that this is James Bond in full-on psycho-revenge mode? The only thing he's doing is trying to hit the organization responsible for the death of Vesper. He wants to kill people.

I don't hate it. The action scenes did suck. I thought the opera sequence was superb. Overall I enjoyed it, and enough to make me rewatch it last year.

Mostly because the writer's strike happened during filming of 'Solace', and the writers walked off the set during a major rewrite.

This left Craig and the director to try and rewrite the script on their own, and the film suffered suffered significantly because of this.

I'll take it over any non-Craig Bond film, but the quality of the film suffered significantly due to the writer's strike.

Besides the aforementioned action scenes that were a mess, it had a really boring villain.

I wouldn't say I hated it. It was just completely forgettable and a poor follow up to Casino Royale.

Nonsensical story. Glum tone. Shaky-cam action sequences. It was just a missed opportunity all around. It's far from "the worse" James Bond movie ever (thanks Internet!), but coming off of Casino Royale it was markedly disappointing. I'd rank it somewhere in the middle of the pack.

At least there was no slide-whistle car stunt...

They probably should have had a decent script before they started shooting. Has any movie written on the fly turned out well?

Anyway, here's the original 11-page review thread about the movie.

I don't hate it and Im enjoying this movie but not one of my favorite one. car chasing scene in beginning is hilarious.

This pretty much sums it up. I don't think people hated it.

I liked it, but the poor action and uninteresting plot made it weaker. Back to back with Casino its not too bad.

Well directors and actors are not the best people to rewrite a screenplay.

Craig said, when he rather recently admitted to the writing thing for the first time, they expected it to exceed 'Casino Royale', that they had some great ideas they were working on, but they could not recover the screenplay after the strike and the writers were forced to walk off the film.

They did the best they could, but both knew it didn't work.

That's how I do it whenever I watch it as well. The action is okay IMO, and yes, it is not as good as Casino Royale. However, I dislike it when people say it lacks the character development of Royale. I always took it that Royale was the character development for this movie and QoS is basically the second half of the story they started with Royale.

The story is dull and pointless, it's not really a "James Bond"-esque movie or storyline, the action sequences are terrible, the villain is a total twat, and the final "battle" between a gimp and Bond should have been over in 5 seconds. What a stupid fucking movie.

The action is wholly incoherent. The plot is threadbare. The villain is forgettable. I did like M being shaken up by her assistant being a mole, and Kurylenko gave a good performance. More than anything, it feels like a complete footnote to Casino Royale, and since it sounds like the Quantum organization won't be featured in Skyfall, kind of a waste.

this pretty much. Love the Opera sequence though. Well constructed.

Yep. I remember watching it and thinking it was a decent Bourne-style action movie. But now, I couldn't tell you a single thing that happened in it, or who was even in it, other than the obvious. Completely, and literally, forgettable.

No, some people were flat-out offended by it. The hate for QoS upon its release was often funny to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_BfEoFFNqo

Don't see where they hated the film. Main guy said it was all over the place. The other guy said he was disappointed and confused.

I guess I'm crazy, but I thought it was a great sequel to CR. Honestly, the two sort of go as one long origin story to me. In CS, he's becomes the playboy-Bond we all love, but makes the mistake of falling in love (and pays for it). In QoS, he suffers for his mistake, makes the bad guys pay, and we see why he's becomes so detached from women from then on. The Bond I grew up with is a perfect byproduct of this origin story, in my eyes.

I liked QoS as well for the same reasons valkyrie mentioned. It works as a great epilogue of sorts to CR.

It doesn't have Sean Connery in it.

The plot is dull and boring. That said, I still enjoy it because I just find Craig incredibly watchable as Bond.

This is basically how I view it. I like QoS quite a bit when taken as a whole with Casino Royale.

I thought it had one of the most thrilling opening scenes of any Bond film, but I agree the plot was incomprehensible at times and the action started to feel stale. I think it works better when watched back-to-back with CR.

Olga Kurylenko makes up for almost everything bad about the movie