Firstly, Im not knocking this movie for the hell of it, I am British, I love Bond, he is a national institution! Ive enjoyed every 007 outing so far, yes some are better than others and yes the invisible car wasnt the best idea in the world, still I love 007 movies. I was so looking forward to QoS after being so blown away by CR, but like Indy Jones 4, I was very dissapointed. Daniel Craig is now my favourite Bond but QoS just fell way below par, which compelled me to actually submit this review to AICN. Quantum of Solace - after Casino Royale, which I personally think is the best 007 movie ever, where do you go? Well not to Quantum of Solace, this could have been nearly as good but falls very flat, this isnt down to the actors they do the best they can with what they are given. The problem is they have wrote bond in this one as a terminator, no emotion at all. The whole idea of him saying he isnt out for revenge etc just doesnt work as his inner turmoil that should be delved into is never truley shown, due to a confused action movie script. The film is quite short too and feels like they missed or edited out the whole charactisation, it feels like theres 30 - 45 minutes missing. The whole Bond and M relationship is only scraped upon and doesnt have the tension and growing respect as in CR, it only briefly scrapes the whole Bond killing all his leads and is really only in there as a plot McGuffin. Bonds connection with the latest Bond girl (I cant remember her name, which shows how much this film didnt draw me in) couldve been delved into more, it seemed their connection in regards to revenge was blown over briefly, it was a wasted opppertunity to bring the humanity to Bond like CR did. The second problem is the action, the director hasnt a clue how to shoot and edited Bond action or action of any kind at all. It down via shakey cameras and MTV style edits and very fast cuts which make it near impossible for these action set pieces to come across as spectacular as they should do and do Bond justice. The whole free running chase in CR was an amazing set piece and you felt you were right there in the middle of it, not one of the action sequences made me feel like that at all, they just left me thinking what happened there? Blink and you miss it! I also expected more character development and emotion from Mark Forester as his earlier films do have this, in which case I may have been able to forgive his awful attempt at cutting and putting together action sequences. Then to add insult to injury, one of the worst bond themes ever which is basically white stripes try to do shirley bassey tops of the 2nd biggest dissapointment of the year after indy jones 4. Overall its ok but after raising the bar so high with Casino Royale, more time, care and getting the right director was needed. The big end finale was also very week and tried to mimic CR, very poorly I may add. Daniel Craig is a great Bond, in fact I do think he is the best, but he and the other actors deserved better material, direction and vision. I pray they put the right director and writers together for 007's next outing. Probabley not bad to watch on DVD but dont waste your hard earned money going to the cinema.
Hey guys, The Northlander here. I went to see the new BOND movie the other day and thought I'd send in my thoughts on it. Personally, I'm not really what you would call a BOND fan. I don't have any feelings in particular towards this franchise, if it's good it's good if it's bad I don't want it. But I don't hate it. When I go see a Bond movie I expect it to hold up to at least your standard action movie level of fun, and I expect it to work even if it hadn't been a BOND movie. So last time, when CASINO ROYALE came out, that was a pleasant surprise for me. That, I liked. Unfortunately, I had some problems with QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and the more I've thought about it since I saw it, the more I realize I didn't really like it that much. See, here's the thing. A lot of people draw parallells between this movie and the BOURNE movies. I'd like to offer a different view if I may. To me, this reminded me more than anything of LIVE FREE AND DIE HARD. Not so much in style, but it had all the big problems LFADH had. The Bond villain this time - Dominic Greene, is evil enough with his plans to control the water supply in Bolivia. You also see the poor starving people who don't get their water from the tank and you feel bad for them. It's good that he also feels very human and realistic, they've really made an effort here to ground him, and they even say (I think twice) that he may be a villain but what player on this level isn't? Anyone who makes deals with anyone - be it MI6 or some large corporation or the CIA - has to deal with bad people. So that's good that you feel the guy is a real human who could really exist, but here's the problem: Bond. James Bond in this movie is John McClane from DIE HARD 4. From frame one, where there's a huge car chase shootout action set piece to where he's fighting some henchman while they're both falling through a scaffold (a scene that somehow kind of reminded me of the one from moonraker where Moore is fighting for the parashute, just because it goes on and on and never stops...) to the scene where he actually falls out of an airplane... This guy just won't die. Or get hurt. Or flinch. He's got that Zoolander face throughout the whole thing. He's cut once in one scene, but he just ties a piece of clothing over the wound and it's never brought up again. I don't think he even has a scar later when you see him without shirt. The big fight towards the end is in a blazing inferno, and after he and camille gets out there's not so much as a cough, from either of them. You try to fight for your life while the building is going up in flames all around you with black smoke everywhere, and see how long you make it without coughing. Never once in this film does he stop and say to himself - 'I'm fucked. What the hell am I going to do now?'. The hero is only as powerful as the villain is, and in this case there's just no match. It's like JASON vs ZAC EFRON here - if Jason was the hero. You know he's gonna find him and kill him and there's never any sense of jeopardy. What happened to the realistic feeling of CASINO ROYALE?? The Bond in this movie wouldn't so much as flinch if someone tied him naked to a chair and beat his nutsack with an oversized rope. He'd just smoke you with laser beams from his eyes or something. I mean... Imagine this guy fighting a realistic approach villain. I actually feel sorry for the bad guy here because he stands no chance in hell to win. Ever. Bond just doesn't stop. If you've seen the trailer you know M decides to pull his credit cards and passport, right? You wanna know how he solves that? He just gets some new ones. Easy. There's a scene where he goes back to M even though he's wanted and there are security men everywhere and he escapes not unlike he was Nicolas Cage in that NEXT movie. It's that bad. I mean, look. The action is fun and well choreographed. There's a cool knife fight, a fun car chase, the action never stops. Everything (except some CGI shots) looks really, really good. Olga Kurylenko should really get something to eat, and some acting lessons though, but that's besides the point maybe. And if that's all you ask from this movie you will like it I'm sure. If you like BOND for what it is, they you'll enjoy this. But that's it. BOURNE is way better than this. CASINO ROYALE is too. Next time they'd better take a cue from THE DARK KNIGHT because for the first time BATMAN feels more realistic than BOND. Two days after seeing this I think I liked GOLDENEYE better, but I haven't seen that one for a really long time so I could be wrong I suppose. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not bad. It's just a very less than average film that's saved by production value, franchise name and the memory of its predecessor. That makes it worthwhile to watch I guess, if you're going to the cinema anyway, because there's not much else going on there at the moment. But it'll be forgotten soon enough. You can catch this on Blu-Ray some other time. Keep that in mind, folks. /The Northlander
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:31 a.m. CST
by Stuntcock Mike
This will be good. C'mon.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:34 a.m. CST
by Karl Childers
It's getting sad. Althought I'm stuck seeing Madagascar 2 this weekend (I have a kid!), I will see QoS next week!
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:35 a.m. CST
by Stuntcock Mike
Cage at his goofiest.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:37 a.m. CST
I know I was not the only one that laughed at that.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:39 a.m. CST
by eric haislar
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:40 a.m. CST
I admit, Craig has grown on me a bit, but I still think Connery and Brosnan are better bonds. Casino Royale is one of the best Bond flicks I've seen a long time, however, so I'm going to give this one a go. I would be lying if I said I didn't have any trepidation over what sounds like an emaciated Bond flick...
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST
I'm looking forward to this, but I just can't deal with the title "Quantum of Solace". I'm really stunned they went ahead with that. Means nothing. Good name for a band, bad name for a Bond movie.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST
Still think they need a bass player, though.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:43 a.m. CST
by teh awesome
Bond isn't a terminator, he isn't unemotional. It's obvious that he has to keep saying he isn't after revenge in order to keep himself from going off the deep end. He's trying to will himself to stop seeking vengeance, but at the same time he is filled with rage for being made a complete ass of and he wants to get the people who did it, and for killing his girl. This bond is right in line with the "blunt weapon" Bond is supposed to be. He is supposed to kill and finish the mission without emotion. Emotion gets you killed. This is great bond, I put it right next to CR as my favorites. Read the books!! This is how Bond is.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:44 a.m. CST
by Banzai Rootskibango
For John McCain!!! Yipee!
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:45 a.m. CST
Ain't nobody gonna go in there calling it Quantum for Solace, at least where I live.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:46 a.m. CST
has nothing on John Twomey. http://www.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/tuner.php?channel=1189&format=movie&theme=guide Twomey's at 1:57.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:46 a.m. CST
A vote for Mccain in New York state is akin to pissing in gale-force winds, but I did it anyway.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:48 a.m. CST
by andrew coleman
He was brutal and I mean the action had to be taken up a notch after the last film. I agree the direction was not the best though I'm glad Foster won't do another Bond film.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:49 a.m. CST
I thought the fanboys love nonstop action
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:49 a.m. CST
...is one word, not three.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:55 a.m. CST
AICN needs age restrictions on it's submitted content policy. It's hard to take a review seriously when you can barely understand it.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:06 p.m. CST
by dr sauch
I was waiting. Oh well, at least I have a squidless Watchmen to look forward to.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:15 p.m. CST
by Banzai Rootskibango
I'm in Florida...I'll vote twice...lol
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:17 p.m. CST
...agreed. The first review is meaningless to me, because it was clearly written by an idiot. I'm almost glad he didn't like it. Judging by his comprehension level, that might actually bode well for my enjoyment of the film.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST
I haven't read the books. Maybe I should, maybe they're a good read.<br> <br> But the emotionlessness is not the core issue here - it's the credibilitylessness.<br> <br> Look, I don't care what type of super training you have or how emotionless you are, if you drive like that and crash like that at the age of 40 you get physical injury. Please. The least you get is a bruise. If you're stabbed in the arm, even if we don't get to see any blood, there IS a scar afterwards.<br> <br> And anyone who's ever been in a fight, knows you need to catch your breath afterwards. If you're in a burning room you cough.<br> <br> These are directorial problems, and they draw you out of the experience. Maybe Bond doesn't need to do that stuff in the books, but film works differently.<br> <br> I'm just saying.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:26 p.m. CST
by Quake II
What idiot decided to release a Bond movie 3 weeks apart in the UK and US? This is 2008! I bet this flick was online the first UK weekend it was released. I'll still pay to see it in theaters because I love Bond but this is a stupid marketing decision in this day & age.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST
When action is more important than story, the movie sucks. When that action is shot by shaky-hand, the movie sucks even more.<p>Casino Royale should be the rule - not the exception to the rule!!!
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST
is because they know its going to get shredded by US press, so they released it overseas first.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:43 p.m. CST
i watched casino just before going to see quantum and fuck me was it not one of the best ways to spend near 5hrs, both movies rocked and quantum felt like the 2nd half of a great movie were they just rocket up the action after the first half character introductions, the movie is fecking class, cant wait to see again, craig is easily now the best bond
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:45 p.m. CST
I haven't seen the new one, but judging from the trailer it looks like it took Casino Royale's sense of self-importance and brought it to a dumb, loud, action film. (Rather than a stylish but inexpicably plotted thriller). "Goldeneye" was both dumb and loud, but it didn't for a second think it was important. It's fun, has an engaging plot and interesting characters, some great stunts and some wild setpieces, and is content to be just that. Why the heck would anyone want a SERIOUS Bond? I mean, Tomorrow Never Dies etc were terrible, admittedly, but not because they didn't take themselves seriously; they just had weaker stories, direction, acting, etc. Let Bond be Bond, I says. The world doesn't need another Bourne.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:49 p.m. CST
I saw this last night and thought it was better than most action movies this year (that's including Indy 5, Hellboy 2) and kicks the testicles off the last Bourne film. I came out of the cinema not knowing what I'd seen at first, but after about 20 minutes I knew I wanted to see the next one...that's this movie does...it makes you want to know what's going to happen NEXT. Which has to be good. Not all loose ends are tied, there are a number of large and small details in this film that allude to an even greater force at work that we will see in the next film. It's more a continuation from the previous film and that's why I think many didn't "get" it. I heard the moans after wards from a friend. "But it's not BOND! The villain was crap and there were no gadgets!" I think that's to come. Bond is still a little green, and at the end of the film you feel that he is now the complete article, capable of doing and behaving like the bastard that Connery played. This IS Bond, it's just a little different.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:51 p.m. CST
I just got back from seeing it. An incredibly average film trying to be more serious than Casino Royal and yet ending up looking far, far sillier for reasons probably already mentioned above. And the whole 'Bond-as-a-machine-of-revenge' thing doesn't work. I don't care if the books play it this way, it's BORING. It doesn't matter if he's bottling up his despair if we never get to SEE that deep down he has a heart. Added to which Forsters action direction is disappointing - all coppy cuts and crash zooms without any clear sense of the geography of a scene. Transformers fans will love it. Only the newfound (read: stolen from Bourne)'grit' of the Bond franchise pushes it above other cinema fare.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:52 p.m. CST
This is a good, solid action flick and a good Bond to boot. Not the best Bond but by no means the poor film some are saying. If credibility of injuries is an issue then stop watching action movies, plain and simple. It's not as good as Casino Royale but was a lot better than I thought it would be. It gives Bond closure and by the end there is no doubt that Bond is about to take on the enemy organisation without emotion or conscience. The final shot of the film reinforces this. The action was not cut as quickly as I feared but it misses out on money shot moments due to the editiing speed. There are also a couple of great intercut scenes. Less character development, yes, but not every Bond film has to fulfill that requirement. And the title DOES mean something. The word "Quantum". If you miss that then you need a CT scan. Watch the bloody film before you write it off and wind up sounding ignorant. Go see.
Nov. 4, 2008, 12:57 p.m. CST
Die Another Day, Never say Never again, For your eyes only, A view to a Kill, The Living Daylights, The World is not enough, Tomorrow never Dies. That's a third of all of them.
Nov. 4, 2008, 1 p.m. CST
I only read a bit of each because I don't want spoilers, but that first one....yeah, eight years old sounds about right.
Nov. 4, 2008, 1:01 p.m. CST
...at least they are trying something different in style. If Bond had never changed since Die Another Day this would be straight to video shit.
Nov. 4, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST
That's what they were touted as when they chose to do this, that's why they're more of the Bourne variety than the Get Smart variety, if you wanna call it that. Personally, I am waiting for the movie, hopefully the third, where M introduces him to all these tech gadgets he at first despises, but eventually comes to rely on, thereby becoming the Bond we know.
Nov. 4, 2008, 1:36 p.m. CST
There are gadgets in these films. They just don't draw attention to themselves.
Nov. 4, 2008, 1:43 p.m. CST
There's some great technology in this, but it's more real-world than laser watches and exploding cufflinks.
Nov. 4, 2008, 1:43 p.m. CST
We want the silver pen that doubles as a medi-laser, etc.
Nov. 4, 2008, 2:14 p.m. CST
Seriously. what the fuck was that? Yes, it had no funny gimmicks, but it was basically the same shit as in the Brosnan-era, Silly plot (Playing poker to stop a villain!), unmotivated action (Y'know, Parkour is trendy, so why not make a Parkour chase? Oh, and 10 minutes later, we have a car chase! Why? I don't know. It's an action movie!), Bond as invincible action hero (fist fight with nail in the shoulder or still able to do a good job just a few seconds after he died and got re-animated), no character development (Unless you count the moment 2 minutes before the end credits, where M tells him that "The Bitch" had a good reason for what she did and bond looks like: "Oops") and a totally miscast lead! (Okay, that makes it worse than the Brosnan era. Pierce will probably never win an Oscar, but his Bond was arrogant and charming at the same time, unlike Craigs Bond who seemed to be very, very bored during the whole movie.)<br> Did anybody even WATCH Casino Royale or did you just read the press kit?
Nov. 4, 2008, 2:18 p.m. CST
by The InSneider
speak the truth and the truth hurts. Trust me, I promise all you Casino Royale fans (I thought it was the best Bond too) will be SEVERELY disappointed by QoS. And Northlander's right, it's not a bad film per se, but it's a huge letdown when compared to Casino Royale and a giant step backwards for the growth of this franchise. For every good decision Forster and the writers make, they make 2 bad ones. You'll have fun with it while you watch but think about it the next day and you'll see how dumb it really is.
Nov. 4, 2008, 2:58 p.m. CST
Car chase, boat chase, plane chase. Doesn't matter - they are all the exactly the same. Dozens of shakey closeups followed by whip pans then Bond does something you can't quite catch and the badguys blow up. And the plane chase is totally pointless. They drive out to the middle of a desert, hire a plane, get shot down stumble upon the bad guys secret plot by chance (doh! if only we hadnt shot him down he never would have discovered our secret plan!) then get the bus back to town. That scene is the worst in the film and reminds me of everything that was stale and old about Bond. It seems each time someone new takes the role the franchise is energized then its back to ticking boxes. Car chase? Check. Boat chase? Check. Plane chase? Check. Multiple chicks? Check. Explosions? Check. Ok we're done here...
Nov. 4, 2008, 3:01 p.m. CST
It is the official language but that really doesn't seem to mean very much.
Nov. 4, 2008, 3:31 p.m. CST
I've commented a couple of times on aicn re this movie and wondering what planet I'm from ? Maybe the people who have a problem are the same sort of people who couldn't watch NYPD BLUE when of was 1st on coz of the camera work! Everyone who has seen loves it! But whereas I usually wonder who writes the positive reviews I am wondering if the bad ones are written by employers of paramount warners etc? THIS IS A FUCKING GREAT MOVIE THAT DELIVERS! The scene just before the climax (at the exit of the hotel) is so fucking cool I almost pissed myself. The movie really has been the only blockbuster that has delivered for me this year and I think the director letting the images do the work is the key. Do you need a scene that verbalizes the protagonists inner state, or can you handle one glare from Craig as he sips his scotch. Maybe this is not a movie for those with no visual vocabulary.
Nov. 4, 2008, 3:42 p.m. CST
The books are awesome. yes, he is emotionless, near the middle of the series. but its more of a gradual desent into that. Bond bleads, gets bones broken, but still manages to get up somehow in them. But at the end of one of the books he is too broken to fuck. Seriously, how un-bond movie like is that? The books are based very much in realistic terms, with alot of flair. If he fell out of a plane, there would be a damn good reason for him to live through it.
Nov. 4, 2008, 3:58 p.m. CST
Sounds good to me. See, that's what I'm talking about.<br> Maybe I'll get one for the BNAT trip. What would be a good Bond book to start with?<br> <br> Also, The InSneider sums up my feelings about this film really well.
Nov. 4, 2008, 4:54 p.m. CST
If you're going to read the Bond books, you might as well start from the beginning, which is "Casino Royale." I've gone through about half of the Fleming Bond novels, and I have to say that Casino Royale is pretty much the best of them so far. Although the bad part is that the movie follows the book so closely that you might find it boring, given that you'll know (almost) everything that happens.
Nov. 4, 2008, 5:14 p.m. CST
i saw QoS monday and completely agree: Craig is still an excellent Bond & the Ukranian girl is an excellent Bond chick but otherwise this film is kinda a waste: Casino Royale it ain't.
Nov. 4, 2008, 5:31 p.m. CST
As a video game. The movie sucked ass.
Nov. 4, 2008, 5:36 p.m. CST
yes he does.
Nov. 4, 2008, 6:42 p.m. CST
and lol @ ignoring the sea of bad reviews aicn.
Nov. 4, 2008, 6:54 p.m. CST
the first Bourne movie had a few silly and over-the-top moments as well, like when Bourne rides a body down the the center of a stairwell or uses a projectile pen to kill a baddie...
Nov. 4, 2008, 7:37 p.m. CST
Maybe it's just the Casino Royale was that good, but QoS left me bitterly disappointed.<br><br>I've not seen a worse Bond villain since "The World is Not Enough" and at least then, Robert Carlyle tried to be scary. The gay french villain in QoS was as intimidating as you'd expect a gay frenchman to be; unless of course he's got you tied up with your pants round your ankles.<br><br>I think what got me the most was that, despite it's attempt at recreating Bourne style fights and action, it was boring. There was no meat to the story that led to each action scene. Instead it wanders aimlessly into each scene and throws in an odd moment of dialogue, like the bit on the plane with Mathis, that has no bearing on the story whatsoever. <br><br>Yes, you could tell Bond was pissed off but there needed to be more to it. The scene where he checks into the fancy hotel in Bolivia just smacked of them trying to make him a bad mofo; instead he came across as a complete cock. Same with the ending. Bond is meant to despatch the villain in his/her own evil contraption or doomsday device. Bond was a success for years and while I agree a reboot was necessary there were some elements that did work in the old movies.<br><br> Overall, I felt like i wasted my money going to see it; I'd rather have waited for the DVD. I still can't believe its the highest grossing UK box office ever too.
Nov. 4, 2008, 7:54 p.m. CST
...was one of the best. Fuck off to the guy who said otherwise. Dalton rules.
Nov. 4, 2008, 11:29 p.m. CST
Bond is back for me, then. <p> Picture me petting my white diamond-bedizened cat.
Nov. 5, 2008, 3:44 a.m. CST
I'm a massive 007 fan, pre ordered my tickets for opening night, and when I left I think I was even more let down than I was after Indy 4. The 45 minutes of adverts didn't help - Bond the watch, Bond the game, Bond the phone, Bond the flamethrower...on and on and on. And then we get a bloody "don't pirate films m'kay" promo by Daniel Frigging Craig!! This film sucked on almost every level - acting, plot, theme, action FUCKING SHAKEY CAM, direction, editing.... I watched all the interviews etc by Craig saying he'd had more input etc into this film. Well, Mr "Best since Connery" - FUCK YOU. In Casino Royale you did blow me away, you were awesome. In this one you were just a pouting robot. And did anyone know what the hell was going on in the DC3 scene? When CR came out, they went to pains to stress the reason you got "Bond, James Bond" and the theme right at the end was because that was him now being 007. Seems EON forgot about those comments. Oh I wish Martin Campbell hadn't passed on this film. He's done two of the best ever Bonds.
Nov. 5, 2008, 4:10 a.m. CST
Love his title song, truly distinctive, dynamic and funky as hell (diggin that syncopated drum groove and the spazzed out fuzz tone solo)it still alludes to the Bond tradition but in a more contemporary fashion. IMHO it set's the film apart from it's 'golden age' predecessors, no one could touch John Barry in partnership with Bricusse or Black, smart move that the 'Craig' franchaise is going for such less obvious title choices. Shame Amy Winehouse was too strung out to cut her session with Mark Ronson, that could have been interesting.
Nov. 5, 2008, 5:56 a.m. CST
by Mr Kite
I saw this last night and was bitterly dissapointed. The film could have been ok (not nearly as good as CR) and the action scenes would have been fine if it wasn't for the shitty editing and shakey cam! Damn near impossible to see what was happening. Reminded me of The Bourne Supremacy. At least they toned it down for Ultimatum. I hate this style of filming and think it has totally ruined what could have been an enjoyable movie. The main theme suits the movie...its pants
Nov. 5, 2008, 6:23 a.m. CST
I saw this on it's release here in the UK. Now, I really liked CR, but this is,as the reviews mentioned, flat. The story makes no sense and worse the action sequences are bad copies of Bourne 2 + 3. Go with low expectations my friends.
Nov. 5, 2008, 6:32 a.m. CST
Brody77 I am with you. The only people I know who saw it and loved it are 12. Sums it up really. Awful, truly awful. Huge fan and the disappointment was painful. Worst action scenes ever, gave me a headache both nights I saw it and you couldn't see anything that was going on in them anyway. Seems found some magic hook in the boat scene that makes boats flip randomly in the air. Getting used to the theme now though but I like the white stripes
Nov. 5, 2008, 6:51 a.m. CST
by Alex Trevelyan
Saw it last night. Its so boring. Marc Forester was a bad choice. He fucked it up. You'll be very disappointed. Sorry for the bad news buts its absolute shite. Quantum of Shite. It also confirmed my doubts that Craig really isn't James Bond. Oh the the action is visually illiterate.
Nov. 5, 2008, 7:03 a.m. CST
by Alex Trevelyan
Just to be clear the story is as inaccessible as the title. After watching QOS its plain that this production had many problems that the editor tried to fix but failed. Word of mouth here as already killed it.
Nov. 5, 2008, 7:09 a.m. CST
Just my 2 pence worth .... (contains spoilers) Saw QoS last night. Almost left before it started, becuase nearly all the adverts were QoS related, and so I'd felt like I'd seen half the film already. Overall, this is a good film. Not great, but good, and I don't regret going. It helps that my last cinematic outing was for the painfully bad High School Musical 3, so anything was going to be better than that, but I digress !! Firstly, parts of this film were brilliant - Craig, Bond's relationship with M, M's investigations and political manouvering back in the UK, Bond's drive for revenge, and that everyone else can see it apart from him, Felix's reaction to what the CIA are doing, etc, etc, etc. As another AICN reviewer has already noted, Vesper Lynd hangs over this film like a shroud, and her name actually gets mentioned more times than this films Bond girl (it was Camille, right?). But the Vesper storyline reaches a fitting conclusion when Bond drops her necklace in the snow, and you know he's let it go. So what's wrong with the film? Oddly, for a bond film, the weakest parts are the action sequences. After reading other reviews, I was expecting severe shakycam, but it wasn't that bad, so that's not the issue. The first problem is there are just TOO MANY action sequences, and many of them not needed, and burst in when not expected. Take the beginning, we start with an action sequence, which seemed cut short, but then we move into an interrogation, which within seconds explodes into another action sequence. Then Bond goes to check out a flat (sorry Americans, I meant "apartment") and there's a fight. Bond later goes to see Felix, talks for 30 seconds (literally), then another action sequence. And so on. Oddly, some of the most dramatic stunts from the trailer, such as the motorbike jump onto the boat and the fall through the glass ceiling, are over so quickly in the film that blink and you'll miss them. Some people have complained this film is too short, but after 106 minutes of almost continuous brutal action, I needed a lie down in a dark room, not another 30 minutes of action. Having said that, I was a little disappointed with the final set piece, the desert Hotel. The total time from its introduction to its destruction can't have been more than 15 minutes, and in it's first scene, the General comments on the Hotels (eco-friendly) hydrogen fuel-cell technology and says it sounds unstable. As soon as he'd said that, you knew what was going to happen, but oddly Bond isn't directly responsible - a jeep crashes in the underground car park, and within minutes, the whole place is aflame. Slight design flaw there, I feel. (Suddenly, the place wasn't looking so eco-friendly.) This did lead, however, to three of the most brilliant scenes in the movie - firstly, for a moment, Bond was seriously going to put a bullet through a Bond Girl to save her from a worse fate, and you believed he could. Later, after being repeatedly told off for the growing death toll, Bond actually doesn't directly kill the film's villain - just inspired, though I was a little disappointed not to be party to what Greene told Bond. Lastly, Bond doesn't sleep with Camille, and that was the right choice, becuase it wouldn't have fitted with where both characters were emotionally. I know not every Bond fan will agree with me on this one. Anyway, this film comes recommended. It fits with the universe of Casino Royale, although perhaps it is tied to CR a little too tightly. As I came out of the cinema, I overheard a woman say "I never saw the previous film, so I was completely lost", and I did feel for her. This film IS going to continue to split opinion, I think it's good (verging on the very good) but with faults, and it's a shame becuase most of those faults could have been easily remedied. Oh, and I quite like the theme tune ... wasn't really looking forward to hearing Amy W sing it.
Nov. 5, 2008, 7:17 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
In case you haven't read the reviews, turnip-dick, two films came out on the SAME FUCKING DAY as QoS, and they have both been getting rave reviews from the critics. One is OF TIME AND THE CITY, from UK's greatest living filmmaker Terence Davies. the other is HUNGER, about Bobby Sands in the Maze prison. So 'if you're going to the cinema anyway' why not see one of those two?
Nov. 5, 2008, 7:27 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
QoS is on GENERAL F***ING RELEASE in the UK! So why are you putting up 2 badly-written reviews by spies, when you could just open up a talkback?
It rocks, Craig is amazing in it and viewed straight after CR it is unbelivably good. Only gripe is it needed 20-30 minutes more which fleshed out a couple of character interactions.
Nov. 5, 2008, 7:47 a.m. CST
First i was annoyed at the poncy idiot from the Daily Mail (British tabloid), stating that QoS was the worst Bond ever!?! Giving it 2 stars (out of 5) when it deserves at least 4 (in my opinion). Honestly the opening to this film is right, every camera shot is an Action Whore's dream!! Another thing that is annoying is the constant moaning of the title! Quantum for those who don't know simply means "An amount or scale of something". and Solace means also very simply "Revenge" Does the title make more sense now?!? if not then your just obnoxious!
Nov. 5, 2008, 7:56 a.m. CST
I'm just a little sad that all the action scenes were thrown away by sloppy direction, writing and editing.
Nov. 5, 2008, 8:28 a.m. CST
That's the only "Bond" moment in there. Though I did like when he flipped the guy off the bike. That was sweet. It's not the worst Bond ever (cough)Die Another Day(cough) but it's not even in the top 10. And you really have to trust the Bond opinion of a guy who calls himself Alex Trevelyan (For England, James? No - for me.) Anybody else wish they'd re-release Goldeneye with a David Arnold soundtrack rather than that electro shite?
Nov. 5, 2008, 8:51 a.m. CST
It had sooooo many great flourishes, including (but not limited to) the entire opera scene, the guy being flipped of his bike, stabbing the guy in the apartment in his femoral artery then calmly holding his wrist and waiting to feel his pulse end. Then there was the use of the DC10 on the smaller plane, the DC10 climb and the look on Bond's face, the clear nerve tingling menace when Bond confronts the Algerian, Bond and Mathis post the police stop, Bond and Camille holding each other in the flames, Bond and how he is gripping Greene at the end of the hotel fight, how Bond decides to deal with Greene in the desert, "I don't have any friends!", and then "We need to see this through to the end.". "I don't give a shit about the CIA, he's my agent."...... want me to go on ? Maybe it needs watching again ??????
Nov. 5, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST
"Quantum" means a degree of measure. "Solace" means comfort. "Quantum of Solace" means degree of comfort. It is taken from the Ian Fleming short story which explores the amount of comfort, the quantum of solace, that you need in something like a relationship, or the decision to leave that relationship or path, before your decison to move on is the right one. THIS IS THE LAST TIME I EXPECT TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO DUMB FUCK'S WHO ARE TOO FUCKING IGNORANT TO ACTUALLY READ OR UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.
Nov. 5, 2008, 9:16 a.m. CST
Not everyone lives in the UK, ya know. Movies have different release dates in different countries and the schedule looks different in pretty much every city in Europe. None of those are out here, and most people - and I mean by far the biggest chunk of the cinema ticket pie - goes to see mainstream stuff like Bond, because they know what it is and what will happen.<br> <br> These people don't considder stuff like independent art films or documentaries. I'll see Hunger at the Stockholm Film Festival in November though.<br> <br> BTW, how's that anger management thing going?
Nov. 5, 2008, 9:17 a.m. CST
If i ever watched it again it might turn out not too bad but i was so disappointed in QofS that i don't think it'll get that chance. It desperately needs a sense fo humour. I'm not saying go Moore or Brosnan but at least Casino Royale mixed thrilling action, wry dark humour and quality acting. In this the action is rarely if ever thrilling, there's no humour and the acting... Craig has nothing to do but run, jump and pout, Kurylenko is fine for what she has but is no Eva Green, Gemma Arterton is stunningly awful (she seems to think she is making a Moore one!). Only the always reliable and great, but underused, Dench and Wright save this instantly forgettable movie.
Nov. 5, 2008, 9:23 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
Anger management thing - going badly. Thanks for asking though. Sorry to presume you lived in the UK.
Nov. 5, 2008, 9:35 a.m. CST
Your comment re: "Please. The least you get is a bruise. If you're stabbed in the arm, even if we don't get to see any blood, there IS a scar afterwards." Did you see the same film I did? Bond's nose is seriously bloodied, he has to stem bleeding from his arm with a piece of rag, and when he took his shirt off (for the ladies, no doubt!) he was COVERED in scars, recent and old. You're talking crap. As for others with their "There's no humour" - no, there are no SHITTY one liners that hark back to the 1980s. Quantum of Solace is really the direct, second half of Casino Royale. It has no story?!? It's a CHASE movie, for Chrissakes. It's the first Bond direct sequel, and enough of the "Oooh, it ripped off Bourne cam-o-vision". So what? It's a TECHNIQUE!
Nov. 5, 2008, 9:40 a.m. CST
You should write for a living! Wow! What style, what substance! Action is "visually illiterate", is it? I'd agree that the editing was more than a little jarring for the first third of the movie, but the fact that you can only post two line posts with no real argument to back up your opinion, well, speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Nov. 5, 2008, 9:49 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
Was that the name of those two dudes in the Muppet Show who would shout out heckles? Sometimes reading these talkbacks is like listening to those guys.
Nov. 5, 2008, 9:53 a.m. CST
Yeah, even reading over my posts, I sure do sound like that. But I've always hated when people post and all it says is, "Complete load of crap - waste of time" and give no reason why at all!
Nov. 5, 2008, 11:27 a.m. CST
Yeah I'm not saying this movie didn't have technique. It's got technique coming out of its asshole.<br> Most of the technique its got is visual however, and what it lacks is storytelling technique and directorial techinique.<br> <br> But what it really lacks the heart that Casino Royale had.<br> And the biggest shame of all is that it could and SHOULD have been so much better in a lot of different important ways.<br> <br> Mr Gorilla - Brittain is a cool place, and I wouldn't mind living there. I've had a lot of fun times in the UK.
Nov. 5, 2008, 12:25 p.m. CST
by Alex Trevelyan
First that was not an argument I wrote but my opinion. Marc Foster's has no ability to direct action even with all the experience of Dan Bradely (2nd unit director, who also worked on the Bourne films). He clearly demonstrated that he cant visually communicate moving objects in the space time and space. Good action directors are great at communicating geography. The audience should always know what is going on when and where. Who is chasing who. They should never be left behind and pulled out of the story due to confusion. Foster intercut Bond chasing M16 agent Mitchell in the tunnels with a horse race. The only reason you intercut two events like these is to great momentum towards a third event which is the end of your sequence. These two events collide to create the third event. This didn't happen here. The intercutting lead nowhere. This lead me to believe the reason why the horse race was intercut was due to poor coverage or simply a boring tunnel chase between Mitchell and Bond. It was unforgivable in my book. Quite uncinematic. The opening car chase was appalling. Visual mumbling. Drunk images. No idea what is been said visually. One reason for this is the lack of wide establishing shots and or helicopter shots. Look at how Martin Campbell does it. The title cards for the location's took me right out of the film. The were jarring and poorly judged. No need for the fancy fonts. Thats just a few reasons. Also the value system in the world created in CR was not continued here. The culmination of the Mitchell chase sequence on the scaffold was fantasy land. Absolutely beyond the world or realism they were trying to maintain. That sequence belonged in Die Another Day. I hope this satisfies your "hatred"
Nov. 5, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST
by Alex Trevelyan
"moving objects in the space time and space" I meant "moving objects SHARING the SAME space and time"
Nov. 5, 2008, 2:42 p.m. CST
Classic. As far as I can tell, though, the bar was set so high with Casino Royale that people are meeting this one with varying reactions to the same truth: it's just not as good as the first one. But so what? Maybe the naysayers just set their expectations too high, and that's manifesting itself as a negative reaction to something that's still, in empirical terms, a good film (as most of the reviews tend to indicate), even if comparatively inferior to CR. I seem to recall a few outliers saying the same thing about The Two Towers. But that movie has withstood the test of time within its canon, and I believe this one will too. As for me, to quote Jules Winfield: "Oh, I'm goin'. That's all there is to it, I'm fuckin' goin'." Count me in on the 14th.
Nov. 5, 2008, 3:39 p.m. CST
Had the worst story of any bond movie I have ever seen. no hold that this film didnt have any story. at all. and the villains are dull. really dull. one of the villains was drawn as utterly dispicable. the general. he likes beer and young women. that is not suitable material for a 12 a movie. The bond makers are running out of road and I dont care how full of denials they are about this. They lifted the knife straight of bourne. As my bond loving friend said to me its all about the actor. She was right about brosnan, he had charm. which craig has none of. The bond makers are saying that they are going to give bond back his gadgets, his girls and his martinis and the quips. All the actors were so utterly under written that there was no tension whatsoever. I heard that re-edited this movie after its london press launch and it shows. this had all the hallmarks of a rushed production and it had all the halmarks of a movie where the script was utterly diluted. that is you paul haggis. The villains were subpar. This film was a dire retread of the world is not enough. populated by boring and dull villains. Marc forster was the wrong choice and it showed. If I want to see bourne. i will see bourne. They should at least give Craig a bigger budget, bigger story line and something a more emotional wallop. and stop with fanvy location caps. thanks. This movie had no real inventive action scenes just bone crunching ones. The scene with opera was good. But what was with the lack of tension. Bond is a human being. The free form stuff takes something away from this franchise. This film was weakened. by that scene in the hotel where M sends M16 after bond. and thier relationship is back to normal. after the foreign sec tells M to sack him or the americans will get him. This franchis is getting weaker. Back to the drawing board. me thinks.
Nov. 5, 2008, 3:59 p.m. CST
that I am lead to believe they edited the movie after the press launch. for what reason I dont know. But you can tell they did.
Nov. 5, 2008, 4:37 p.m. CST
by Alex Trevelyan
I like where your head is at. Spot on.
Nov. 5, 2008, 7:21 p.m. CST
by I Dunno
for the three hundredth motherfucking time! What the fuck?
Nov. 6, 2008, 2:36 a.m. CST
Well, you learn something new every day. Who did they get, Stevie Wonder? The main reason I get so riled up by the crapness of QoS - Daniel Craig was excellent in CR. Here he's totally wasted, seems they spent more time doing Anti-Piracy ads, Sony TV ads and whatnot that they forgot to concentrate on the film. This flick was all about the merchandising crap. Oh, and did you know Quantum means....only kidding, we heard him the first time.
Nov. 6, 2008, 2:47 a.m. CST
Back then, it was ok if a sequel to a movie was not as good as the original. But now The Dark Knight blew Batman Begins out of the water? We need our cake and eat it to, and sadly this time Bond did not deliver. That and it must hurt that The Dark Knight seemed more like James Bond action-gadget-realistic wise AND it was directed by a Brit. :P
Nov. 6, 2008, 4:25 a.m. CST
called Tara Brady. Saw the film in London at its press Launch and saw it again for the segment she does with the crime writer declan bourke. She said on air that the makers went back into the editing booth after the films press launch and they took the good bits out.
Nov. 9, 2008, 3:22 p.m. CST
joyless fucks. they play the character like a stick up his ass.