Quantum of Solace Reviews

Please post your Quantum of Solace reviews here, discuss the details, feel free to include spoilers.

If you wish to discuss elements of the film please post a new topic (or post in an existing one), this is for actual reviews & comments.


  • Moonraker 5Moonraker 5 Ayrshire, ScotlandPosts: 1,821MI6 Agent
    edited October 2008
    First of all, can I just say that I was one of those doubters back when Casino Royale was in pre-production. I feared the reboot, I was skeptical of Craig, I shuddered at all the talk of it being stripped of all Bondian elements. Boy, was I proved very, very, very wrong. Casino Royale blew me away. Craig was nothing short of brilliant. It was classy, exotic, had the women, the cars, a luscious Bond-lilted score, a creepy villian, a few dry one liners, a gun barrel (of sorts), the line. What was there to fear?? It propelled itself into being one of my all time favourite Bond films and Craig cemented himself in the role. So it was with some confidence I avoided ALL spoilers on the run up to Quantum of Solace. I didn't even really read the reviews for fear of spoiling the film (I raged at myself for tripping over Agent Fields' real name by accident). James Bond was back in Casino Royale. What was there to fear?

    Well, it turns out, everything.

    Quantum of Solace opens with no gun barrel sequence. It launches straight into a car chase. Which sort of quickly happens, then ends. As the title sequence started, I sat there with my mouth open, aghast at what I just saw - a pre-titles sequence that, while technically impressive, left me somewhat cold. The title sequence itself is, in my opinion, the worst in the series. Is it neo-modern? Is it retro? Or is it just crap? With weirdly stenciled letters that seem more at home on city street walls than a Bond film. And don't get me started on that theme. I loathed it before, but cut-and-shut to fit the titles...eek.

    The film then lurches from action sequence, to action sequence. The fight scenes are brutal, violent and cruel. This isn't Bond. This IS Jason Bourne. When Bond killed in the past - and we're not talking about those huge commando-style endings, a one on one - it was so few and far between that it was shocking. Here, it's just cold blooded. The action sequences seem to rush the film along at a heightened pace, yet in the same time it doesn't seem to go anywhere. By the end I was bored.

    To be very fair to Daniel Craig, he does a good job with what he's been thrown to do. Judi Dench as M has some terrific dialogue, Jesper Christensen steals his scene, and the rest of the cast are adequate, but there's not really much for them to do. Mathis' appearance is more confusing than enlightening, and Felix Leiter is, well, there. The dialogue at times is so quick that it's unintelligable, and at times peppered with too many subtitles to pay attention - I missed several points, including how M managed to escape the gun fight at the beginning. This is supposed to be us seeing Bond's character being shaped, but other than stabbing people and throwing them off buildings, I'm not quite sure I see what that character is supposed to be. And as for innocents - they used to climb out cars that had been flattened by tanks, unscathed. Now we've got them being shot at horse races? No... That's not what I took from this series as a kid. Given that there's little to no humour, and sod all romance, there's nothing to really take the heat out of the gore. One particular scene where Bond kills a lead in his hotel room, by holding the knife in till we see him stop breathing and his eyes glaze over, is bordering on being downright evil. Oh, and Bond noticably drunk? On 6 Martinis? C'mon, even I can hold my drink better than that.

    The plot I couldn't follow at all. Suddenly Bond's on the trail of Dominic Greene. He wants water in Bolivia and wants to reinstate a deposed General to get that water. The CIA are involved. Bond gets in tow with Camille who wants to get the General. It's all just a macguffin really, a background annoyance and an excuse for Bond to tail him from location to location.

    Mk12's location "announcements" are irritating, and muddy the waters, along with Marc Forster's sometimes beautiful, sometimes lightening quick direction (which lost me in the pre-titles, making it just bland) make this wall-to-wall action flick get confused at points. Is it trying to be arty? Clever? I'm not really quite sure. It didn't work on me, anyway.

    The score is instantly forgettable. There's no punch in the air moments, nothing sticks out. And to be honest, that could sum up the film as a whole.

    The lack of gun barrel at the beginning is, for me, unforgivable here. Bond was back at the end of Casino Royale, God only knows where he went for the duration of Quantum of Solace, but when he 'returns' at the oddly placed, inexplicable gun barrel at the end, it appears like an afterthought, and the gun barrel itself is underwhelming. There's a tinny rendition of the Bond theme, not a thumping "hell yeah!" type, and it's over so quick. He takes about 5 paces before he shoots and the gunbarrel surround (no doubt done by Mk12) looks a bit "oh yeah, forgot about that bit - I'll knock it up now." With the PTS and title sequence, it is for me the worst effort of the series.

    Oh dear. I do sound as if I'm being very down on it. But, to be honest, I went in there excited, with such high hopes, and I feel like I've been kicked in the balls.

    A good few sequences and characters on paper should work, but oddly just don't. There are some nice touches, but there's also some homages to past Bonds that seem well out of place and, rather than be clever or a nudge-wink, just highlight how out of touch this film is with the rest of the series.

    I'm one dejected man tonight.

    ** out of 5.
  • iommiiommi Posts: 13MI6 Agent
    I went to a regional premiere this evening for the film. I don't often post on here but I am always looking to see what others have to say, but I thought I'd share my feelings with you over the 22nd film.

    Overall, I enjoyed the film. Its a very different kind of Bond movie, and its difficult to talk about at such an early stage. Its certainly going to require several viewings.

    The plot is not particularly engrossing, as the film moves at such a rate that its difficult to keep up with the developments. Something about oil, or water, and a giant secret organisation that rather mysteriously has managed to stay off the radar of worldwide governments.
    So one chooses to focus on the other aspects of the picture- the music, the style, all the ingrediants of a Bond film.
    They are all here in some form. The first thing that is particularly striking about the picture is the style of it.
    Its a continuation from CR, as you all know, but its evidently completely different in tone, stle and exectucion from its predecessor, right from the begining. So vastly different in fact, that initially it dosn't feel like its remotely related to Royale, and in many ways, the rest of the franchise.
    At first, I was somewhat dissapointed that all of a sudden, the Bond franchise had lost its elegance, its charm, its seductiveness and its wit, and its brilliant narrative drive,- all over again, when it worked so hard to get it back in 2006.
    But in a way, the Bond films stand up as individual pieces, despite the fact that they are all part of the same franchise, and I suppose this is the reason we now have the 22nd entry in the series.
    So ultimately, I think I have nothing but admiration for the film-makers, in that rather that re-hash CR, they have created something so different from something that worked so well to begin with.
    The biggest compliment I can pay the film is how much it plays out like a Connery film, in terms of the costume, the globetrotting and its distinctly retro appeal, but also the portrayal of Bond by Craig.
    He is a great Bond, but I hope that EON just lets his representation of Bond enjoy himself a bit more in the future.
    The style of the film, in parts, is brilliant. I mean, fantastic, particularly the Opera scene- an example of film-making really at the top of its game, and it is clear that Marc Forster has really tried to find new ways of portraying a Bond movie, rather that just playing it safe by using the same conventional approach (stand up Mr. John Glen! (love his pictures really!)).

    David Arnold's music suprised me in Quantum of Solace. Its a rather understated score, and really seems to drive the piece along. He is certainly growing on me as a provider of Bond music. I have found his music, particlarly in TWINE and DAD, to be overblown, unnessesary and horribly invasive.
    He really changed this with some of the lush melodies, and Barry-esqeness in CR. I really loved that score, but here he uses music differently. At times it seems playful, and really contributes to the overall narrative of the film.

    The characters? Not hugely memorable- in that they really just arn't given enough screen time to develop.
    I'm sure Green, Camille, Medrano etc could have been quite interesting, but in many ways it really isn't that important. This is a Bond film about Bond, and perhaps for the first time in the series, the plot has taken a back seat.

    One thing I think the film makers need to take on board when it comes to 23 is the inject a sense of fun back into the film.
    Perhaps not back to Moonraker standards! However, Bond in this film is at times quite dark, and in my view he occasionally came too close to becoming somewhat unlikable, and this is dangerous territory for the franchise.
    He needs to be fun again, he needs to be a sexist, mysogonist dinosaur again, he needs to not look so battered and bruised again, he needs to drink great wine and sleep with more women and just be Bond as we know him cinematically. That is at least, in my view.

    I know you will all have mixed feelings about this film, and it will take a while for it to fully absorb.
    I look foward to reading you views on the film, and where you see the franchise going next.
  • D-MAND-MAN Posts: 13MI6 Agent
    First post,

    Hello to you all, and best bond site by far!

    What a shame for my first post!! The film had such great potential but i dont think Forster or the writers took it in the direction needed. Very fast paced and good action however i have to agree with the "too much like bourne" when it came to the fights. However it was not like that in CR which had the balance perfect with the fighting more raw and less planned .
    You always expect to much from a sequel normally but with the last film i could not see this being spoilt which for me i feel it has.What was the point if everyone near bond get killed we get the point,surely he can save some people.We all now this is not CR and in its own right of course it should be different however it does not have for me the core bond balance.

    On the plus side Craig was amazing and still some good scenes.
    May be this could be the dark sequel for a hopefull better third film .
    I will have to watch again one thinks.
  • authorwritingauthorwriting Posts: 12MI6 Agent
    I was one of the few who hated Casino Royale - I though it was an excellent action film, a Bourne clone but not James Bond. I still think Daniel Craig is not suitable and after half an hour of QOS I walked out of the cinema - and I've seen every Bond in the cinema since Moonraker. The last Bond film was Die Another Day -DANIEL CRAIG'S VINNE JONES/BOND has no place in the canon.
  • bondaholic007bondaholic007 LondonPosts: 878MI6 Agent
    -> Here is my review of it, Took me ages, Whilst answering the door to trick or treaters


    Enjoy :)

    There may be a few spelling mistakes, My spellchecker isnt working. I think that it is exactly how it goes in the film, I got a little tired writing half way so I cut it down to a paragraph of the last 3/4 of the film.
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    Right.....where to start?

    Well, we watched it twice. That should tell you something. And I would have expected a second viewing, straight on the heels of the first, would have shown up all the weaknesses. And you know what? It didn't.

    It's simply fantastic. Better than Casino Royale. The Bond Girls are far more likeable - I always found Vesper bloody annoying. She couldn't just smile - she just wrinkled her face up like she'd just caught a whiff of something unpleasant. Deeply unlikeable, I thought. Easily the most annoying thing in Casino Royale, and for my money, the film's big weakness. This, though, is a different beast. The action is excellent.

    There's been criticism it's too short - It's about 1 hour 45. Plenty long enough.

    They say there's no plot - I say there weren't paying attention.

    This is easily the least Americanised Bond I've seen in a very long time, if ever. The plot is there; they tell you everything you need to know. But they only tell you once. They don't insult you by reminding you every five minutes of what it is they're supposed to be doing, because they don't seem to assume the audience has the attention span of a goldfish.

    Bourne? Just shut up. Right now. I'm not even going to demean myself by addressing any Bourne references in reviews, because that's just lazy journalism. It's not Bourne. It's Bond. And Bond could kick Bourne's amnesiac butt without breaking into a sweat. Simple as that.

    The car chase - excellent. Fight scenes - excellent. Foot chase - fan****ingtastic. Daniel Craig - bloody cool, calm, suave, cunning and a killer. Oh God, is he a killer.

    Humour? There's loads of it!
    "Careful - I think she has handcuffs" - "I certainly hope so"
    "When people say 'we've got people everywhere' you expect it to be hyperbole. Florists say it all the time."
    "You should just say CIA, Felix. I got this number by asking the taxi driver where you were."
    "What about Slate?" - "Tell her he was a dead end."

    Soundtrack - I thought it was great. There seems a lot more of the Bond theme motif running through it.

    Gun barrel walk at the end - so what? Most of the audience, in both viewings, were busy picking up their things to leave. Very few people care about the bloody thing. And it makes perfect sense being where it is. This is a retcon. Bond is not the same man as Goldfinger Bond. He's just out the special services. He's had his career in the Navy, few years' SBS service, Special Intel, and now Double-O. But he's just an SBS Royal Marine in a tuxedo. He's rough around the edges still. Quantum of Solace shows him getting far more panache and polish into his act. By the end of the film, he's the Bond who deserves a gun barrel walk. If you stuck it at the beginning, particularly as Quantum just picks up more or less where Casino ends, it would slow the film down. It would be all kinds of wrong. It's at the end, and it's exactly where it should be.

    There's lovely references throughout. Bond on a bike in one shot looks just like Steve McQueen in The Great Escape. Things remind you of other things - Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, Man With The Golden Gun, Living Daylights... it goes on. It's all those things, and yet none of them. Which is what makes it bloody perfect in my eyes.

    It's bloody marvellous. I'm refraining from reconsidering my list of favourite Bond films, simply because I feel it needs to stand the test of time a bit, and I don't want to go rushing into things. But by God, I'd be very surprised if it isn't in the top three.

    Oh yes. "James Bond Will Return". I was jumping up and down at that point.

    Brutal. Barbaric. By, by God - it's Bond. And it's Beautiful
  • MoniqueMonique USAPosts: 696MI6 Agent
    Ravenstone wrote:
    This is easily the least Americanised Bond I've seen in a very long time, if ever

    That comment perplexes me. What does that mean exactly? In what way?
  • avekevavekev UkPosts: 122MI6 Agent

    I couldn't agree with you more. An excellent piece of film making.
  • John DrakeJohn Drake On assignmentPosts: 2,564MI6 Agent
    Monique wrote:
    Ravenstone wrote:
    This is easily the least Americanised Bond I've seen in a very long time, if ever

    That comment perplexes me. What does that mean exactly? In what way?

    Consider me also perplexed. :s
  • pickles007pickles007 Posts: 7MI6 Agent
    edited October 2008
    a few hours have passed and the questions are starting to come up such as what is the significant of the prime minsters aid, what happened to mr white and is there perhaps one big bad guy in the mould of blofelt left to uncover,

    I suspect there is . I am going to have to go and watch it again.

    But be honest positive reviewers the fonts of text used throughout the film are terrible plus the pre title sequence.

    The next Film has to be titled Risico !!
  • lotuslotus englandPosts: 292MI6 Agent
    never mind all the crap this film is brill !!!
  • superdaddysuperdaddy englandPosts: 917MI6 Agent
    i agree risisco could be the codename 4 bonds mission like thunderball and 24 could be property of a lady and the plot 4 that is denchs m turns out to be a traitor
  • leerstleerst Posts: 2MI6 Agent

    You dont know what you're talking about!
    It was as, if not more Americianised than Die Another Day. No Gun barrel at the begining started the downward spiral of a terrible film.
    Yes, Craig is good with what he has to work with & dame Judi is great as always but where is the plot, where is the story?
    This is BOND as a CIA agent not BRITISH.
    For god's sake Keep BOND 23 BRITISH with a BRITISH director & staff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • leerstleerst Posts: 2MI6 Agent
    To Moonraker5

    I couldn't agree with you more my friend apart from the 6 Martini's bit. He actually had 6 Vesper's which is 3 shots of gordons gin, 1 shot of vodka & half a Kina Lillet. I dont know if you've tried one before but they are very strong. So realy he had 18 gin's & 6 vodka's, I dont think he was looking that bad after drinking all that.

    Keep up the good work though.
  • Sweepy the CatSweepy the Cat Halifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
    edited November 2008
    Quantum of Solace - Review

    The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot.

    Action sequences are shot in a similar way to 'Paul Greengrass's' 'Bourne' films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot. 'Daniel Craig' delivers a solid performance again, as in 'Casino Royale' this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward.

    'Olga Kurylenko', 'Mathieu Amalric' and 'Judi Dench' are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff. However 'Giancarlo Giannini' holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. 'Elvis' and 'Medrano' are less consequential than I was expecting.

    The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale and for you to engage. It's smart and rewarding but very, very, different.
  • MailfistMailfist Posts: 243MI6 Agent
    Saw QOS last night and much as I hate to say it I came out disappointed. Maybe after CR my expectations were too high. CR was one of the best Bonds and I suppose the chances of equaling it were always going to be slim.

    For me the problems were:

    1. It was liking watching a hubrid of LTK and Jason Bourne. There were times when I felt you could have replaced DC with Matt Damon and no-one would have noticed the difference. Like LTK in an attempt to achieve more grittyness the charm and style which makes Bond Bond was jettisoned.
    2. Mathieu Amalric was totally wasted. His Dominic Greene came across more like a spoiled schoolboy.
    3. Lack of a decent henchman. Elvis was pointless and had all the latent menace of Winnie the Poo.
    4. Since when did Bond not get to shag the Bond girl at the end.
    5. For a movie that was meant to be character driven why have a script which has practically no character development in it.
    6. Dire theme song. Already covered in another thread.
    7. Forgettable score. Hardly noticed there was background music.
    8. Confusing plot. Quantum took over 60% of the water in Bolivia (or was it oil or diamonds). Thats going to keep me up nights worrying about it.
    9. I'm starting to get a bit concerned at the collateral damage occuring in the movies. Innocent bystanders used never to be hurt. In CR we had the construction workers getting blown up and in QOS it is the girl at the horse races.
    10. Opening scene. I'm not a big fan of the Paul Greengrass shaly camera/fast editing. It was hard to tell which car was which and what was happening to who.
    11. Mathis wasted as a character for future movies. Why did he have to die, it wasn't like Bond needed another reason to go after Quantum.

    One other minor niggle. If QOS was meant to start 1 hour after CR why was Bond and Mr. White wearing different clothes. Bond 3 piece suit had become a 2 piece, and Mr. White's blazer and flannels had become a grey suit.

    For all of these faults I still enjoyed it, just not as much as I expected to or wanted to. I could have as easily been watching a Bourne or Taken. There was nothing to say this is Bond.

    On the plus side:

    1. Judy Dench was great.
    2. DC looks comfortable in the role.
    3. Visually it was impressive. More of the travelogue photography which has been missing from some of the Bonds. The juxta position of the horse race and the chase between Bond and Mitchell looked good.
    4. The stuntas were impressive if not particuliarly original.

    I sincerely hope the Quantum orgainsation is going to return otherwise there are just too many loose ends. Dominic Greene could not have been the top man- too lightweight.
  • Lazenby880Lazenby880 LondonPosts: 525MI6 Agent
    edited November 2008
    In grit and in glamour – this is brutally Bond

    Luckily I managed to maintain a sort of Bond bubble over the past few months, refusing to read about any of the developments or any of the reviews. I am glad I did this as, having now read those reviews, I’m not sure what to make of them. Quantum of Solace is a remarkable achievement. I remember writing of Casino Royale that it was daring, different and bold. Comparing that film with the rest of the Bond oeuvre really was like comparing apples with oranges. And comparing Quantum of Solace with Casino Royale is like comparing oranges with pears.

    Perhaps the bravest aspect of QoS is that, after the hard-earned success of CR, the film-makers did not merely attempt to regurgitate that formula. They have developed the themes evident in CR but in a different context, with an individual style and a supreme flair. The overarching atmosphere of melancholy and despair incorporating the themes of loss and, most importantly, trust is rendered beautifully in the film’s stand-out moments. These include the death of Mathis which becomes something of a defining moment for Craig’s Bond: a minute of reflection and emotion to be discarded moments later as he has to compartmentalise such feelings to move on.

    But if CR’s main moment was the shower scene with Vesper, for me the similar QoS moment was Bond’s cradling of Camille in the hotel as they almost become enveloped in flames. One really senses that Bond is reaching out for a replacement for Vesper (a notion explored with a wonderfully awkward moment later on when Bond kisses her) with his innate protective instinct coming to the fore. He couldn’t save Vesper. He can save Camille.

    One of the strongest aspects of the Craig films is the travelogue feel reminiscent of the 1960s pictures. The locales are captured with ease, and thankfully we don’t linger too long as we move on to the action which uses the scenery as a backdrop. There are a whole host of luxurious images in South America (the desert scenes are gorgeous) Siena and Bregenz. QoS is the most visually arresting picture in the series.

    There is one man who dominates this film and that man is Daniel Craig. He has been given room to breathe here, to flesh out the profound sense of loss and betrayal he has suffered. One concern I had was that the end of CR was an attempt to say the old boy is back. Thankfully, this is not the case. Craig is still a very human, flawed individual, hunting down those responsible for Vesper’s fate. The genesis of the character is still developing and in lots of subtle moments – Bond stealing the photograph of Vesper and her boyfriend, for instance – Craig demonstrates this superbly. The sardonic humour, in which Craig excels, is evident but the sneers match the seething turmoil and rage that burns within. Craig embodies the part; the part doesn’t embody him.

    Craig is, of course, a great actor and what we have in his Bond is the most complex and interesting 007. He is not Fleming’s Bond, no one can be, but he does incorporate some of the best aspects of Fleming’s character. Craig’s features do lapse “into a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal and cold”. Yet the shielding impulse is also there, best exemplified with Bond’s protection of Camille and holding Mathis as he passes away. It isn’t purely Fleming’s Bond, but it is the best interpretation of that character we have ever seen.

    The supporting cast add an even greater sense of depth to the film. Amalric’s bulging eyes and vicious smile make for a delicious villain without becoming a cartoon. There is a genuine sense of malevolence just below the skin; consider the scene in which he leaves Camille to be raped and thrown overboard by General Medrano. Camille is a fascinating match for Bond, ably embodied by Olga Kurylenko, without becoming an ‘equal’. Her backstory gives her a determined motivation with barely suppressed anger almost to match Bond’s own as she seeks retribution for what Medrano did to her family. Jesper Christensen is scene-stealingly good as Mr White, and one can only hope that he re-surfaces next time round. Craig and Dench share some magnificent chemistry and Dench’s M has a major role to play in the development of Craig’s Bond. One interesting point about her M is the ambivalence towards the United States and the CIA in particular. This is part of the worthy geo-political subtext to the film.

    The conclusion to the film is remarkable and, from the dropping off of Greene in the middle of the desert, to the ultimate confrontation with Vesper’s boyfriend, we see Craig’s Bond at his best. One cannot emphasise enough just how powerful a performance this is.

    There are, I understand, reviewers who complain that this is not a Bond film. Ignore them: this is a brilliant film (most importantly), but also a brilliant Bond film. Moneypenny and Q are not here. This is a good thing – they’d clog up the storytelling. Yet there are lots of little Bond touches, and the style of the Austrian scenes is as Bond as I have ever seen. Consider, also, BOnd;s rfusal to stay in a clapped out hotel despite it suiting cover. It is a different *type* of Bond, so I suppose traditionalists may be somewhat disappointed, but that doesn’t make it any less Bond than what has gone before.

    And while Craig deserves some sort of award for his ground-breaking interpretation of the character there is another man who deserves significant praise. Marc Forster has crafted a beautiful film, fast-moving yet intelligent, full of action yet action with a point. This is lean and mean, an adult thriller which gives the audience the benefit of the doubt – there is a gratifying lack of exposition. The splicing of action scenes with events in the location, the palio in Italy with the street-chase, the performance in Austria with Bond’s escape/chase, is striking. This is high-quality film-making.

    There are lots of other little things I liked: the sense that the deeper machinations of the plot are only just being uncovered, the haunting undertone, the feeling that ‘Quantum’ has infiltrated the world’s governments and secret services at a very high level. There was, however, one problem: we never hear how MI6 discovered Mathis’s innocence. It is explained away well enough, but I would have appreciated just thirty seconds of clarification.

    The producers could have been forgiven for being contented to take the easier route, however this is a film as brave as CR. The character has been pushed even further. But what is truly impressive is that this has been achieved without wallowing in self-obsession. There might have been a temptation to turn inward, to explore Bond’s character so much that it became a character study rather than anything else. But this has grit. This has edge. This is the new Bond. Hopefully he is here to stay.
  • sirdavidsirdavid Posts: 3MI6 Agent
    Well, I liked it.

    After hearing some fairly negative reviews and I had assumed that Marc Forster had found himself way out of his depth with this movie, that the only saving grace would be the action scenes, and that this would account for the short running time.

    I was wrong.

    I very nearly walked out of the movie too. I'd booked for two screenings (one yesterday, and one in about an hour's time) and found my mind wandering from the film and deciding whether or not to bother turning up for the second screening, despite the fact I'd already purchased the ticket. Why? Because the beginning of the film was appalling. The pre title sequence is such a wasted opportunity. A great car, a fabulous location and it bored me to tears. Given the calibre of people working on the scene, this is really disappointing. I couldn't follow any of it. It could all have been CGI for all I could tell or care. Didn't look as if any of it had been done for real. The problem was simply with the editing, but was that the editor's fault, the director's, the producers'? The title song is excrement. Pure and simple. The titles themselves would embarrass a straight-to-video title. Then came the rooftop chase. Dreadful. Again, I couldn't fllow any of it, nor did I care for the characters. It just seemed to end up with loads of closeup shots of swinging bits of scaffolding. No idea what was going on, but apparently Bond survived. This is where I very nearly walked out.

    From then on I thought the movie got much better. Most of the other action sequences are much better. I actually really loved the different location titles. Loved the camera moves and the establishing shots (especially on the lake and in the desert). Great use of lighting and silhouettes. Nice creative use of sound during sequences such as the restaurant chase. Nice editing juxtapositions and montages during the opera scene for example. Liked the editing during the non-action bits, very tight and lean.

    Loads of obvious product placement. Obvious Michael Wilson cameo. Obvious Dr Ulrich Bez cameo (the ceo of Aston Martin). None of this upset me. Obvious nods to Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me and Casino Royale (no doubt I'll have missed some), but again, these didn't upset me at all. Didn't care about the relative lack of sex or the seriousness of many of the scenes. There were plenty of funny lines in it, but they were used in places where they wouldn't interrupt the pacing, and they weren't as cheesy as those from the Brosnan era.

    All in all, I liked this movie. I didn't walk out, and I am going back for a second screening. It wasn't perfect, but there were some really beautiful things to love about it. Many of the criticisms on here I agree with, they just couldn't give two hoots about them though (such as where the gun barrel goes). The only real disappointment fr me was a few of the action scenes, especially those earlier on. And that's a big disappointment because improving them wouldn't have involved reshoots or the like, just better editing.

    Now who do we petition for a Director's Cut, with slower cutting and the opportunity to see the stunts being performed for real?
  • zig zagzig zag EnglandPosts: 244MI6 Agent
    I went to see it last night and was very impressed.
    The film is bloody fantastic,alright it may be a bit more brutal than other bonds,but as dc says bond aint always nice.
    Cant wait to see it again.:D
    "Yes,dammit,I said "was".The bitch is dead now."

    "It's not difficult to get a double 0 number if your prepared to kill people"
  • zaphodzaphod Posts: 1,183MI6 Agent
    it is with great sadness that I add to the list of bad reviews as I loved CR and was really looking forward to QOS although getting increasingly concerned the nearer to release day we got.
    Just to be clear this is an unmitigated mess and disaster of a film. Disjointed, impossible to follow, lacking in any sense of 'Bond' at all. At 106 minutes it dragged despite the hyperactive jump-cuts and hand held set pieces. It is a waste of Daniel Craig, indeed of everyone in it and certainly a waste of audience time. I hope it tanks, as at least that would prompt a re-think, as everything that was great about CR is absent here. I am simply stunned at how bad it is. You may think that I'm over reacting, or that this is the poisioned ramblings of a re-boot hating anti Craig, but let me assure you that it is not.
    No gun- barrel, no problem, no gadgets or Moneypenny who cares ? but this bears no resemblance to James Bond at all, it' more like a Terminator movie. If M did not refer to him as Bond occasionaly you would have no idea who this merciless killing automaton is. Bond should be ruthless and capable of real nastiness, but he also has to be more than just that. Daniel is never given a chance to stretch or even breathe between set pieces. Even that might be fogiveable if the set pieces worked, but they don't as you cannot tell who is doing what to whom for the most part with the outcome that in the end you just dont care.
    There is no sense of character, and it has a villain that makes Jonathan Pryce seem menacing. It is second hand and second rate, content to ape it's past, and ransac others to try to cover up it's lackof anything worthwhile to say.
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    John Drake wrote:
    Monique wrote:
    Ravenstone wrote:
    This is easily the least Americanised Bond I've seen in a very long time, if ever

    That comment perplexes me. What does that mean exactly? In what way?

    Consider me also perplexed. :s

    It was the feel of the thing. It simply felt more European, more British. A stylistic thing. That's all.
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    leerst wrote:

    You dont know what you're talking about!

    I'm talking about my opinion of the film, and as such, I'm perfectly qualified on the subject, thank you!.
    where is the plot, where is the story?

    Quantum are buying up utilities around the globe, putting in tinpot dictators, and making them buy their utilities from them at hugely inflated prices. If they don't play the game, they are deposed. They 'steal' all the water by building reservoirs, then buy the 'worthless' land - worthless because there isn't any oil there - and then own all the water. It's that simple.
    This is BOND as a CIA agent not BRITISH.
    For god's sake Keep BOND 23 BRITISH with a BRITISH director & staff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You do know what they say about people who use excessive amounts of exclamation marks, don't you? ;)
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    Mailfist wrote:
    4. Since when did Bond not get to shag the Bond girl at the end.

    Licence To Kill springs to mind.
  • Lt  ALt A Posts: 3MI6 Agent
    Having read most of the broadsheet reviews this week, which were on the whole not very inspiring I was expecting, a rather dull, mixed up art house "jason bourne-istic" experience. I can happily say this was not my experience. Bond is back, he is dark, cruel, focused and unlike his predecessors eminently human. What the “professional” reviewers (yes I am being tongue in cheek) seem to forget is that this is a sequel to an unfolding story of Bond’s quest to find a level in his life, his slice of comfort in his time of grief. Street would say he’ trying to find “where he’s at” Fleming much more elegantly called it his “Quantum of Solace”. Bond’s way of achieving his level is by the only way he can, cold emotionless killing driven not by vengeance but the quest to find out why and by whom. Marc Forster I think understands this point in Bond’s life and how he would deal with it all and gives us his vision of what it would be like for Bond on his journey. The action starts from the first frame with a velocity and pace that never stops. Daniel Craig has made Bond believable, what would an educated, ex special-forces government assassin who has had his heart ripped out by a female be like? He would be like Craig’s characterisation of Bond, cold callous and determined. A man who has seized the initiative and will not stop until the mission is done. But underneath all that armour he is still just a man. Craig’s polished acting lets us see this humanity in the brief moments when Bond pauses to think about the cost of life before closing his heart and moving on. The film is fast hard hitting, relentless, only pausing briefly until the job is done. Mirroring Bond’s life during this time. Even the theme music by Jack White and Alicia Keys is probably what Bond might have listened to at this time of his life, angry dark and menacing. Only to be quickly replaced by something more to his taste once the mission is complete. I can see why Bond aficionado’s, have not warmed up to this period of his life, but like us all life has intense angry fast periods where we find it hard to keep up before it changes once again. If you understand Bond as he is now you will understand this film, take it for what it is and enjoy as I did.
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,057Chief of Staff
    iommi wrote:
    One thing I think the film makers need to take on board when it comes to 23 is the inject a sense of fun back into the film.
    Perhaps not back to Moonraker standards! However, Bond in this film is at times quite dark, and in my view he occasionally came too close to becoming somewhat unlikable, and this is dangerous territory for the franchise.
    He needs to be fun again, he needs to be a sexist, mysogonist dinosaur again, he needs to not look so battered and bruised again, he needs to drink great wine and sleep with more women and just be Bond as we know him cinematically. That is at least, in my view.

    And it's a very valid view...it's just completely diametrical to mine.

    I like DC's Bond...he's a cold bastard in this movie...and who wouldn't be after watching the woman they loved betray them (so they think) and then kill themselves...while they watched...

    QoS has plenty of humourous moments...and a couple of laugh-out-loud ones too...and I think they have got the balance just right on this here...

    ..again...this is a 'grown-up' Bond movie...just like CR was...and I'm very happy with that..
    YNWA 97
  • Christmas TounesChristmas Tounes GloucestershirePosts: 164MI6 Agent
    edited November 2008
    (If you haven't watched then Don't bother reading any reviews!! Just wait to make your own judgement, but be prepared for a SHOCK even if you thought Casino Royale was different.)

    Daniel Craig - great Bond
    Car chase (best ever)
    Lots of action
    Theme tune and titles were great
    M's character & her control room
    Proper Fighting
    Good looking girls
    Opera sequence - mostly brilliant
    Circus chase scene - very good & different
    Nods to previous films
    Sets up nicely for the next film which...
    ..no doubt I will really look forward to.

    Marc Forster
    Plot (If someone can explain everything to me I'll eat my laptop)
    All other characters completely undeveloped
    Rapid speed/Poor editing ala Die Another Day - i.e. instantly in another continent
    No gadgets
    No Q
    No moneypenny
    No gunbarrrel at start
    No 'Bond, James Bond'
    No glamourous locations
    Moments of cringe worthy unrealism - out of place, e.g. motorbike jump was crap, we should have seen Bond set up a ramp and nearly bail.
    Gruesome pictures/thoughts/ideas not necessary.. ..just not my idea of entertainment
    Location titles were crap
    Film felt very amateur in places

    Bond & Camille would have burnt at the end if not for the most unrealistic escape route ever..how entertaining...not

    RATING: 5/10 (generous)
    1. Goldeneye 2. OHMSS 3. Goldfinger 4. TND 5. Octopussy 6. FYEO
    7. LALD 8. TWINE 9. Skyfall 10. AVTAK 11. CR 12. TLD 13. YOLT
    14. TMWTGG 15. Moonraker 16. TSWLM 17. Thunderball 18. FRWL
    19. Dr. No 20. DAF 21. LTK 22. DAD 23. QoS 24. Spectre 25. NTTD
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    Hmmm...I can't quite work out how your minuses exceed your plus points, but fair enough!
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 36,957Chief of Staff
    Still recovering from my first viewing, here are a few random thoughts-

    Unlike many Bond movies, which tend to start out well and then fall apart/lose pace/lose the plot as the story progresses, this one just gets better and better as it goes along. From about the halfway mark it's superb, and then the closing scenes top the whole thing off. I'm implying that I didn't care for the start, basically because of the editing style- it's as if Forster feels he'd be fined if a shot lasts longer than 0.5 of a second. Thankfully that style relaxes later into the movie.

    Much as I love and always have loved Judi Dench and her M, the tendency to give her more and more to do continues on its merry way:

    Albert R. Broccoli's EON Productions present
    as Ian Fleming's M in
    also starring
    Daniel Craig as her employee.

    Perhaps slightly overstating the case I know, and it isn't really Ian Fleming's M she's playing anyway, but she's certainly this film's leading lady (without being the love interest).

    Mathis and Leiter were used well, especially the latter and his ambiguity over the CIA's role, but I was sorry to see Mathis depart. Kinnear's Tanner isn't much like Kitchen's.

    And put me in the camp of preferring the gunbarrel at the beginning, rather than the end.
  • authorwritingauthorwriting Posts: 12MI6 Agent
    Much is made of how close Daniel Craig is to Fleming's bond - No he's not. Fleming's Bond was always that little bit larger than life, as were the villains, the girls, the plots. Sometimes Fleming's books even bordered on SF.

    The last film to have the essence of Bond was Die Another Day, which may have been flawed but at least it was James Bond.
  • Son Of BarbelSon Of Barbel Posts: 227MI6 Agent

    To be honest I was disappointed. I wanted one of these-

    a) A modern, sophisticated, realistic Bond. Very like Casino Royale. More suited to my generation but without being childish.


    b) A traditional good old Connery film but without Connery.

    What I got was neither. Too silly to be smart. Too smart to be silly.

    Whether it's Forster or the editor, QOS changes camera way, way too often. Appearances from Mathis and Leiter for appearances sake. However this is not too say I didn't like them. However as has been the case recently too many villains spoil the broth. Jesper Christensen was completely underused as a brilliant Mr White who could certainly have been the main villain. I also liked Greene as a character. He seemed as if he was trying to be a Blofeld-esque character but the producers (or whoever makes these decisions) would simply not have it hence the hints (mainly eyes) and oh-so-evil look at me I'm evil did I mention I'm evil Colonel Evil Medrano. Plus I did not like the portrayal of Bond as not a white knight, but a cold-blooded killer.

    A main girl who we couldn't really care for. I did prefer the secondary one who was slightly more interesting. We also had our fair share of sacrificial lambs. I wasn't huge on the plot, but the organisation Quantum storyline shows a lot of potential.

    I also loved the nods to previous films. Most notably the way Fields is killed (Goldfinger). A bit of LTK (God let's not go down that road again) in the sense that to me it seems like an American cop you-killed-my-favorite-second-cousin revenge story. And the brilliant scene at the end where Bond is thoughtful (for once in the film, by choosing not to kill the man) and Vesper is avenged.

    In conclusion shows a lot of promise for the next film. I got sucked in by advertising to think this was the Bond film I was waiting for. And for this I shall make a list

    Damn you:
    QOS adverts
    Bond girl perfume
    That computer company
Sign In or Register to comment.