Ain't It Cool News (

Harry thinks QUANTUM OF SOLACE translates to Ass Kicking BadAssery Part II!!!

Oh I love this James Bond. I sat down today to watch CASINO ROYALE in Blu-Ray, then drove across town for the sold out midnight show of QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It seems that nobody at Sony particularly wanted me to see this film early, but that’s alright – this audience was holy shit great to see the movie with. But you don’t want to hear about the audience, or the new trailers for STAR TREK, WATCHMEN or THE SPIRIT that we saw. No – you turned to this page to see where I come down on QUANTUM OF SOLACE. First off, this whole – “It isn’t as good as CASINO ROYALE” bullshit needs to be put aside. For the very first time, in a realistic story telling manner – we have a linked Bond universe. What happens pre-Credits is important to the film that follows – and now, the epilogue is every bit as important to this film as it is to the next film. We’re in the midst of a completely redefined James Bond, that in many ways doesn’t resemble any of our previous Bonds. Daniel Craig isn’t Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan. But he is Ian Fleming’s 007. Not necessarily a gorgeous man, but a piercing one. He has danger and death written all over him. They don’t mind roughing his face up, giving him scratches and lines. This Bond scars. This Bond bleeds. His lightest fights resemble the one between Sean Connery and Robert Shaw in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, but they are in fact tougher, more brutal. Craig’s Bond isn’t a surgeon spy, he’s a Bull in a china shop, that knows what it all is and crashes it not because he doesn’t care, not because he doesn’t respect it, but to make a point, to get what he wants, to not be ignored. The biggest difference between this Bond and all the previous ones is that he’s not ahead of the game, he’s just barely in the game. He doesn’t waltz in as though he is entitled to a seat of the table, but just try to keep him from taking one. This is a Bond that is a part of MI6 that isn’t necessarily the players they were 30-40 years ago. They don’t have the money being thrown at their department as say the CIA or the other players, but there is a doggedness, a sheer aggressive display to catch up, to find out what these new rules are, to find out who the bad guys are and who are the good guys playing with them – and what does it all mean? Some people would like to say that Bond is motivated sheerly out of revenge for the death of Vesper, but ya know what? I disagree. He’s honoring her life, but not dropping it. He’s pursuing the last leads she gave him. The last remnants of her life point to something larger, something horrible that the world has just caught a whisper of. An organization that’s destabilizing governments, playing the biggest powers in the world opposite one another, yet serving them at all times. Bond is rogue, because his government doesn’t quite know what he’s found, what he senses. This isn’t so much about Nailing everyone responsible for Lynd’s death, as much as finding out why she died and making that death responsible for something good for the world. Ok, I’m an optimist and a hopeless romantic, but I see Bond as a Government agent version of Batman, Batman isn’t fighting just the person that killed his parents, he’s fighting the evils of the world so that perhaps no other kid will have to know the pain he has inside of him. Bond knows something big is going on. In CASINO ROYALE, it seemed to be a guy trying to manipulate the Stock Market through terrorism – the money at stake was over $100 million. In this film, it isn’t so much a matter of $100 million dollar, but the fate of Bolivia… the entire country. But the film points to something far more sinister… An organization that manipulates the United States, Russia, China, The UK… the POWERS of the world into doing the terrible things we see happening in the world. This film elevates the stakes. This film tells us that this isn’t about the death of one helluva beautiful lady. This wasn’t about a gambler and $100 million dollars and old school terrorism. This film tells us that the problems with the environment, global economics, social collapse, the wars, the pain and the suffering… that there might be a plot for it all. There’s something evil and dark and corrupt rotting at the world and Bond can smell, he’s caught its scent and he’s after it, even if the world doesn’t give two shits if he figures it out. This is Pulp JAMES BOND. This is Ian Fleming's James Bond unleashed into the horrorshow that Ian Fleming could never have imagined... the intelligence world of 2008! This is two scoops of Global Political Pandemic Madness. And Bond’s trying to put it together the only way he knows. Following one lead to the next, and the leads are beginning to add up. The leads are advancing his station at MI6. This is getting absolutely fucking fascinating. This is EXACTLY the JAMES BOND we need for the 21st Century. One that isn’t pretending to be in the geo-political world of the 1950s and 60s. One that isn’t in the science fiction fantasy and tongue-in-cheek bullshit of the 80s and 90s. This is a Bond for the here and now. This is about shooting a man in the leg. This is brutal blunt force savagery unleashed in a Tuxedo and other fine linen. He’s a James Bond that can pass for a Gentleman when he has to, but he’s really a cold blooded killer and it is absolutely exhilarating to behold. Everyone is fucking great in the film. Seriously. Just fucking great. I would kill to see a FELIX LEITER series developed from Jeffrey Wright’s CIA man. Fuck Jack Ryan, Felix is the man! And yes, I am all over the next Bond. Can not wait. But more so, I can’t wait to watch this one again. The film is the next chapter and I don’t want this to be a trilogy, let’s see how far they can take us, cuz I’m willing to hitch my cart to this version of James Bond for the foreseeable future. They’ve nailed it!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 14, 2008, 3:46 a.m. CST

    I posted something similar in Mori's talkback...


    But this film deserves a bold defense from the so-called movie fans that are shitting all over it. Just because it's understated doesn't make it bad. It's delicate as opposed to bombastic. Most importantly, it's classy. The opera scene is downright Kubrickian. I never thought I'd see a Bond film so down to earth, dealing with actual issues instead of silly made-up fantasies. Hasn't this character had his fill of that? I "enjoyed" Casino Royale more, sure. But QoS will endure. It's value will appreciate slowly, but surely. I can look past it's flaws and see the creators taking bold steps with this character. It ain't for everyone, but to those that will appreciate it, it's like a fine wine, not a fucking depth charge.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 3:46 a.m. CST


    by Sir Pirvan


  • Nov. 14, 2008, 3:57 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    Harry's review is what I meant to write. What he said.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 3:59 a.m. CST

    The world needs Bond

    by CoolerKing72

    Fantasic ending to Casino Rpyale. My only gripe if i had to give one would be the action is too choppy and quick in the action and some scenes wasted. Other than that it was a brilliant addition to the 007 universe. Thank you Mr Craig. Fuck all the doubters that were. Bond is a scouser. Makes me proud.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4 a.m. CST

    You Know One Thing I Dig? SPOILER!!!

    by drew mcweeny

    The way the Felix Leiter storyline plays out. He knows the guy he works for is a douchebag. He might as well be wearing a shirt that says "Douchebag." And Leiter helps Bond. It's one move. It's a small thing. But it's enough to get Bond out the door a few seconds early with a new piece of info for his trouble. And in return, Bond pulls some strings at the end and gets Leiter the bump at the CIA. So in the next film, they're both going to be on equal footing, looking good, able to flex some muscle. Leiter's arc in the Fleming books is a little bit crazy, and if they took their cues and built some of that into this, it's possible we could get a really cool role develop for the always-excellent Wright.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:04 a.m. CST

    This could be a stretch, but...


    are American audiences enjoying this more than the UK audiences? Because it seems like most of the bad buzz came from overseas. But then of course, there's that harsh Ebert review that makes no sense, based on his own preconceptions. So it's probably not a nationality thing. But just throwing that out there.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:07 a.m. CST


    by Mastidon

    I couldn't agree more with Mori. My reviews suck compared to yours. And yes, this film just makes me want more, NOW. Bring on 23!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:13 a.m. CST

    Harry, this is one of your best reviews EVER

    by BillEmic

    This is why I come to this website. I'd heard all the negative buzz over Quantum and was worried. I loved Casino Royale, I LOVE Craig - I wanted them to nail this sequel out of the park. I'm happy to see that you get the character, Harry, and by your word so do the producers and writers of this film. The reinvention of Specter as a truly insidious force working to corrupt the government and the world in the 21st century - it's all too scary, all too REAL, and just fucking perfect for the Bond franchise. I can't wait to see this movie tomorrow. Thank you, Harry!!!!!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:13 a.m. CST

    mastidon, your reviews suck... period...

    by PirateEmery

    Read Mori's and Harry's reviews. Although you had a 'spoiler box' around your review, it doesn't mean you can do a complete detailed plot summary.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:14 a.m. CST

    Totally agree with Harry its Flemings Bond

    by ilander66

    Daniel Craigs Bond is totally the essence of what Fleming wrote. Fighting the fight the only way he knows how, I love the way he is evolving on the screen right before our eyes, I love the way he gets repremanded, reigned in the way they try to contain him but he is the only one capable of getting the job done. A job no one else wants to do. And does he get praised by M? no he gets to carry on for a bit longer becouse they need him to be the product that they trained him, that he evolved to be. This series with Craig could go for say what 5 six films each one building on the last so in the end he maybe suave, sophistcated, educated on top of the game to take the worst of the worst out or he may be a total shell of a man broken by what has gone before, BUT importatly the audience would be there every step of the way and that would be facinating. I think people like to backlash at anything just for the hell of it but Quantum of Solace is a great film and a fantastic Bond.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:17 a.m. CST

    As for the review at hand...

    by PirateEmery

    Wonderfully spot on, ol' chap. Although this Bond isn't one for quips, there are several lines in this movie that may very well translate into this becoming my favorite Bond movie to date. This includes the few lines at the end (notably, the whole dialogue with Greene in the desert).

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:20 a.m. CST


    by Mastidon

    FYI - 3 out of the 4 stories I did on Quantum have no spoilers in them at all including my full spoiler free review. My point is, Harry's review tops all others out there to date including Ebert's.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:21 a.m. CST


    by Fixthe Fernback

    I was eager to see Quantum and disappointed by the reviews, yet deep down I thought surely it's not as bad as some are saying? I mean Marc foster is no hack, and Craig is awesome as bond, not to mention Olga! How could they have got it so wrong? I'm glad to see that it delivers for some. I hope it will deliver for me too, as I love the new Bond. Nice review Big Guy!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:24 a.m. CST

    Ebert gives it 2/4 stars

    by Prossor sorry Harry but i'm with Ebert on this one. This is jason bourne crossed with lifetime channel melodrama.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:28 a.m. CST

    No the World doesnt need Bond: QoS is proof of that.

    by wowsah156

    Sorry but for once i have to disagree with Harry on this. Quantum of Solace is a badly written, badly directed, badly edited, rushed and unfinished movie. QoS at times only stands on the preformance of Craig. and he carries this movie. But forsters direction and editing choices are just horrible. The producers said that when filming began that there wasnt a finished script. ITS STILL NOT FINISHED. By giving a thumbs up here , you will just embolden wilson and Babs Broccoli to make more sub standard Bond movies that are lousy. IMHO Bond has not translated well to the 21st century and since Brosnan and Craigs movies this is more apparent. Bond works well has a historical time piece in say the 50's , 60's and in the early 1970's but in an age where shows 24, Spooks, and the god like Jason Bourne reflect the concerns adn fears of the viewer and show the corrupting nature of spying , Bond comes across as an immature character who lacks any depth. QoS would have worked better set in the 1960's, but now, its just a poorly written take on Bond. There isnt even any reference to Flemings short story of the same name in the script, which is just a waste. To sum up dont defend a bad flawed poorly directed rushed badly edited movie with an unfinished script. QoS will make money, but this movie will just show how good and relevant the Jason Bourne movies are now.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:36 a.m. CST



    Ebert has a problem sometimes with preconceptions. I know I often get saddled with that criticism, but I don't mind changes, so long as they serve the story. In this case, Ebert is completely on board the Cinematic Bond train - the series of actors that have played Bond for the past 5 decades. <BR><BR>This is IAN FLEMING'S James Bond. A brutal cold blooded thug that knows how to skin a sheep to disguise himself as a gentleman to get closer to his prey. This is a man that drinks to dull his sober reality, that fucks to extract some measure of pleasure from his life and who takes pleasure in being good at what he does. <BR><BR>That isn't necessarily the Bond that folks that only know him through the films know. The cinematic Bond has some of those aspects, but he's always been the model of PLAYBOY's definition of Gentleman. He likes his drinks perfect. This BOND hasn't reached that level of refinement yet. He knows how to have his drink done right, but at this point in his life, he hasn't learned to have the patience to get it right. He's got bigger fish to fry. <BR><BR>This isn't Jason Bourne. He isn't a savant that hates his abilities. He's a man that delights in his abilities. Loves that in a smash mouth brawl he's the the one that will leave breathing. It may not be for everyone, but as a JAMES BOND fan - I've been waiting my entire life to see the CHARACTER done right, and they have nailed it.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:36 a.m. CST

    QoS was a sequel just for the sake of it...

    by Lloytron

    ... and it was a stupid one at that.<p>It added nothing to the series or the character. It had too many WTF moments, moments that just would never have happened in teh real world, in Bond's world or in Fleming's world.<p>Hydrogen cells in hotel walls? Fuck off.<p>M hunting Bond down then letting him go because she trusts him? Fuck off.<p>Bond getting told off for shooting someone in the head when he didn't, and not denying it? Fuck the fuck off.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:36 a.m. CST

    I never said it 'isn't as good' as Casino Royale...

    by Prague23

    I've been telling people that 'it isn't as enjoyable' and admit that that is simply my first reaction. In Prague, where I live, QofS has been in cinemas for a week already, plenty of time for me to post some reflections with perspective. <p> I've got some qualms about the script. The Strawberry Fields character in particular who simply shows up, seemingly, to remind the audience that Bond is indeed inclined to, ahem, 'mack them bitches' from time to time. However, as amazing as this Bond universe is that's developing, I felt that it was actually strange that Bond would get with her with all that goes on around him. Out of place even, and perhaps even out of character. I hope more time passes between QofS and the next one so that Bond can actually find his mojo and remove many fine ladies' clothing with all this newfound solace he's acquired. <p> What I absolutely loved is that, shot for shot, you can edit Casino Royale and QofS together and, excluding title sequences, it works as one single, long ass film. That's amazing. <p> One thing, all those posters with bond walking through a desert with a machine gun... never happens in the film. Desert, yes, with big gun, no. That shit drives me crazy! But all in all, get out and see this film because it's quite good. I'm planning to see it again in the cinema very soon. Gotta figure out that whole 'plot thing' that sometimes gets lost in all the shooting and running around!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:37 a.m. CST

    Wowsah, I disagree

    by JaviT

    Bond is a constantly evolving thing, like batman, not Sherlock Holmes. CR/QOS isn't ripping of jason Bourne, it's ripping off Ian Fleming, which would then make it faithful to the source material. QOS was a great film that still had characters shine through all the action.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:38 a.m. CST

    Bond is so much more than Bourne

    by Knugen

    Bond definitely has borrowed Bournes action, but only in style, not in scale. Bond is albeit more realistic still larger than life and a marvellous spectacle. I really enjoyed this Bond - even more than Casino Royale which was dragged down by length and a that poker game. That said I really like Bourne.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:40 a.m. CST


    by Knugen

    people complaining about lack of character development? Have they seen the earlier Bond films? Absolute camp!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:44 a.m. CST

    Damn You Michael Bay


    Damn You Michael Bay

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:47 a.m. CST

    it's still not as good as Casino Royale though

    by Righteous Brother

    Maybe my expectations were too high, I was expecting TDK style greatness. Still digging Craig as Bond though.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:47 a.m. CST


    by Mastidon

    It is absolutely worth a second viewing in the cinema. For example, I totally missed a key word being spoken at the Opera that I did not hear again until the final desert scene. I completely agree with you, take out the title and it is one singular Bond film after you combine the two. I thought about that gun poster as well as it is everywhere I drive here in GErmany. My take on it is that is another link to CASINO ROYALE as he is holding that gun at the end and if I remember correctly, you do not see it anywhere else in the film.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:47 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    ... I read the Strawberry Fields thing a little different. He fucks her because he has to. He's got to convince her to drop her guard so he can do what he needs to do. The other choice would be to disable her. Bond made the right choice, don't you think?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:47 a.m. CST

    Character development in previous Bonds

    by ilander66

    I love some of the old Bonds but they were mostly one note. was their ever any evolution in Connerys stint or Moores. I have seen the films countless times, in the UK as a child they were traditional Bank Holiday fare and in a way that was the good thing about no continuity as they could just stick on any old Bond and you knew the character was going to be the same (ok I know that Connery and Moore and Dalton et al all played him differently but within their runs they kept him the same). But now with QOS if they show that on TV in about 10 years you may have to have the Lost guy voiceover 'Previously on James Bond....' Not saying its a bad thing by any means I thought it Rocked and cant wait to see it again and more importatly to see if they have the balls to continue along the path they have set out for Craigs Bond.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:52 a.m. CST

    Strawberry Fields...

    by ilander66

    I think he has sex with her like Mori says out of neccesity to get her out of the way but there is also that Hedonistic side to Bond in that he knows that he could be dead in an hour so its whats available to do at the time. Theres a woman lets fuck, free bar on a plane get drunk, Switching hotels to a better one, its the relentless pursuit of all things that drives Bond on.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:53 a.m. CST

    I have seen every single bond film since Never Say Never Again..

    by emeraldboy

    and wathced the connery bonds on tv. </p> I want to put on the record that I enjoyed Casino Royale. for the most part but felt the card nonsense grinded the film into the ground. to the point where, Martin Campbell failed to jolt the film back to life. </P> I am adamant however, that Quantum of solace has the worst story for a bond that I have ever seen. The person who I saw the film with was bond. we both ended up giving the film, quantum of solace 3/5. I am not only person who thinks the same way about this film either. I posted on another thread on this website about bond about How I felt the villains were sub. The movie lacked tension. and almost all the parts were underwritten.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:01 a.m. CST


    by ilander66

    'The person who I saw the film with was bond.'? you mean an actual secret agent? a man named James Bond. Hate to break this too you but he aint a real guy (I dont think) and also the Villains some times ride around in subs they are not subs themselves.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:02 a.m. CST

    Spot on

    by jasper Stillwell

    This review is, like Mori's, rright on the money. I've been saying exactly the same thing to anyone that will listen about this. When people go on about lack of 'plot' in this film as a criticism it's plain that they don't know what they're actually criticising - most Bond film's plots are cursory and just in place as a way to join the 'bumps' up. This is a mean, tight, stylish and very enjoyable addition to the franchise. I'd love if it the makers continued to take a few chances with the formula and offer up slightly different visions of Bond alongside this tougher post-Bourne incarnation. For me though the action scenes were almost incomprehensible and that did mar the piece, it'd be ideal to take it out of distribution and re-cut, (of offer a more 'comprehensible' DVD version?) it as they scenes themselves were brilliantly staged but poorly assembled in the editing room. Spatial dynamics were missing and logic went out of the window entirely, even the Bourne series gives you a long shot very so often. The Opera sequences were stunning and among the most creative I've ever seen in Bond film and the touches and the material between 007, M, Leiter and Mathis was all handled in an exemplary fashion, mature, reasoned and balanced and in keeping with this new version. Blackmailing Bolivia for water untilities was a nice downplayed and very relevant idea in times of globaslisation and runaway capitalism - and when was the last time a Bond film was politcally astute?!? In the same way OHMSS was rediscovered in the 1980s I have no doubt this will be reclaimed at a later date as one of the more interesting films of the franchise. There are 20 'old style' Bonds out there, go watch one of them if that's what you want.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:07 a.m. CST

    Not a great Bond film

    by Scabby

    Now I don't post on here very often but I felt that QoS was so mediocre that it was overwhemingly dissapointing after the superb Casino Royale. Yes, Craig is excellent in the role but the plot is a total mess and the action scenes never fully resonate or amaze on the same level as Casino's building site chase or hotel brawl. The fight scenes in QoS don't feel personal at all and you have no connection with it as they are just faceless villains who are dead bodies from the outset. Also the central villain is a charmless waste with no decent dialogue to chew on whose master plan is poorly fleshed out. The film does have nice ideas throughout it but it just feels rushed and focuses more on the action and substitutes the storyline and character moments that Casino Royale did so well. Also on a geeky side note; the futuristic MI6 in this film was horrible and screwed up continuiety after the traditional looking interior of the previous film.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:08 a.m. CST

    The Quantum Menace

    by The Equalizer

    "The name's Bourned, James Bourned" That's what came to mind after watching Quantum of Solace. I too am a lifelong lover of Bondage (oo-er!), in fact, my knowledge of Bond is quite unhealthy! I really became fed up with the series after Goldeneye. Not that Brosnan was a bad Bond, it was just all too formulaic and dare I say, over the top! I mean, an invisible car!! So when I heard that they were reinventing the series with Casino Royale, as well as introducing a blond Bond, I was anxious to see what would happen. I thought the very worst and came out overjoyed. A great film, and probably my fifth favourite film (after From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, OHMSS and The Spy Who Loved Me). It was a breath of fresh air and did well to dispose of the stench of Die Another Day. The reason it was so good is because they became aware of the movies / TV shows that had been based on Bond and bettered it. It was the Broccoli's turn to show up the imitators. They took Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne and turned them back in James Bond - and it worked a treat. I expected much of the same from Quantum of Solace, but sadly, I think they failed. They've done what they did with previous Bond films: lost track of the story in favour of the things which they thought defined a Bond film. With the older films, it was the gadgets, the girls, the cars, the explosions and ridiculous megalomaniac baddies. With QoS, its the fast, frenetic action, wobbly camera work, and unrelenting Daniel Craig. Sadly, there's no real story (other than a feable cover for revenge), a poor villain with a desire to embezzle money from poor Bolivians who clearly haven't got any WTF??), absolutely zero danger to our be-tuxed hero, and they've turned 'M' from head of MI6 into a kindly Aunt. And breathe... and continue... He doesn't get the girl, the theme tune was crap, the henchmen would have been played better by Nathan Lane and Robin Williams. It was a good and enjoyable film, but it should have been called The Bond Identity.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:32 a.m. CST

    Hah! Anyone who thinks QoS...

    by mossad77

    Is average or mediocre doesn't know a good action film from a hole in the ground. If this film is average what's a great action film? Hard-Boiled? What, there hasn't been a great action film in 16 years? For those like The Equalizer ; you (and your handle) need to leave THE PAST. This is nothing like a bloody (plastic, boring) Bourne film. But we have moved past the gadgets and the wacky villains. Try to keep up old boy! Lastly, I think this film is nigh on perfect. Was the editing a little choppy? Yes. But guess what? If Ebert (I think it was) can say (my words his meaning) 'The comedy parts of The Searchers are bloody awful but I filter them out and so it's a classic'.......If he can get away with that so can I! Choppy editing aside it's a classic - the best Bond so far alongside Casino Royale. I used to say we didn't need James Bond because we had Jack Bauer. I was bloody wrong. Welcome back 007!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:46 a.m. CST

    Best Felix Leiter ever

    by sean bean

    I agree with you on that, Harry. Let's hope he doesn't get fed to the sharks any time soon. But I thought Mathis had potential as a recurring Bond ally too.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:47 a.m. CST


    by The Equalizer

    I know many good action films, it's possibly my favourite movie genre, however, Bond has always been an exception. The whole Bond mythos stands aside from your Die Hards, Commandos and Bournes by being in it's own genre. It's about espionage, megalomaniacs, the Great British stiff upper lip, and a charming, drunkard womanizer who happens to be pretty much the best in the world at whatever he puts his hand to. This is not. It's about a one-man hand to hand killing machine. This machine has moved from being a Bond film to being Commando - not something that I've ever desired.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:10 a.m. CST

    good action film? yes...Bond? NO!!!!!!

    by j2talk

    Look at GoldenEye, that is What a modern Bond should be......this is not James Bond......

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Mossad77? Are you on crack?!?

    by irishraidersfan

    "It's about espionage, megalomaniacs, the Great British stiff upper lip, and a charming, drunkard womanizer who happens to be pretty much the best in the world at whatever he puts his hand to." So, just like Quantum of Solace then? Espionage? Briefcase chase - check. Megalomaniacs? All of Quantum, in particular Dominic Greene - check. British stiff upper lip? Bond's emotionally drained, bereft over the death of his love, but getting on with it. Check. Charming, drunkard womanizer? Did you see the hotel lobby scene? The lack of sleep, drinking scene? You haven't a clue, mate...

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Damn, that last post was to the Equalizer!

    by irishraidersfan

    Sorry, Mossad77!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:32 a.m. CST

    "realistic story telling manner "

    by Midnightxpress

    eh no...complete Spy fantasy, just less camp..

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:39 a.m. CST

    but Harry,

    by hoisin

    the sroty is just so weak.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:04 a.m. CST


    by emeraldboy

    The person who I saw the film with was a real person. and not bond, obviously. The villains in these craig bond movies are bland, dull and one dimensional. Look...with the cold war over, its was going to be difficult to come up with villains like blofeld and gold finger etc. Dominic Greene is a sub villain. ie he is utterly forgettable, the character was underwrtten and despite the great actor that played him. His role was utterly diluted. The green angle was weak. Oprea scene was very good though. The attempted rape scene should have been excised. I have no idea why they kept it in. the general was again an underwritten role. There was no real invention to any of the action scenes at all. I'll stop cause I dont want to repeat myself. but I dont agree with harry's review of the film. not one bit.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:05 a.m. CST

    This is exactly the problem some people aren't understanding

    by Gabba-UK

    This IS Fleming's Bond. He'd be fucking delighted with it. Imagine if you've never seen a Bond movie..... you've only read the books. Now imagine seeing Moonraker or the Spy Who Loved Me, after you've read the books... You would be so fucked off! Well, I don't have to imagine. I'm in my late 30's and I must be one of the few people who actually read Fleming's stories before seeing the films. I love the films with a passion. They are simply brilliant. But they ain't the Bond I first met. The Bond I first knew is the brutal bastard from the books. And Craig and the crew from Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace have nailed it!!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:07 a.m. CST

    I will gve you all the name of somebody who doesnt like these...

    by emeraldboy

    Craig bond films. Sir Roger Moore. Says so in his book. he thinks they are apalling. You cant argue with him.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Yep, we heard the plot. How about the MOVIE?

    by ricarleite

    But it's obvious you liked it. See Vern's review for my comments, I won't repeat myself here.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Barbaras Bitch


    Another sycophantic review, from a man who now licks arse, instead of being an independent voice in world of cinema. The reason this didnt work, was because the set pieces were all over the shop. you can't see what is happening. action at its worst. couple that with such a boring eurovillain, and a finale which owed more to a HDTV ad, than it did to the world of bond. How much they paying you Harry ? Do u get to hang out on set of next bond film ? What is it.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:30 a.m. CST

    Thankyou Harry

    by My Mom Is A Whore

    Nice to see you actually got this movie, unlike some dumb fucks on this site. Glad to see our opinions match and that you loved it as much as me. Live long and prosper!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:34 a.m. CST

    I actually enjoyed QOS more than The Dark Knight

    by My Mom Is A Whore

    Don't get me wrong because I loved TDK to pieces but it suffered from being slightly too long. QOS was short, packed in lots of great action and had a sterling central performance from Craig. I went to see an action movie featuring one of my favourite characters and I got EXACTLY THAT.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Loved Casino Royale. Want to see Quantum.

    by BilboRing

    I never liked James Bond films. To me they all sucked and were just boring goofy movies. I saw Casino Royale and loved it. Why? Becuase it was not like the other Bond films. Craig is an awesome Bond. The others before him were silly. Just my opinion. But if Quantum is anything like Casino, I will be really happy.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 8:16 a.m. CST


    by mossad77

    As Gabba says ; these new films are for those of us who actually like the original novels. Those of you who say it's "not a Bond movie" will just have to stick to the old films. And for the record Emeraldboy, Roger Moore doesn't like them, so fucking what? He didn't create the character!!! Connery DOES like Casino Royale. Is THAT good enough for you....?!? Jesus Christ.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 8:22 a.m. CST

    ".....that Ian Fleming could never have imagined"

    by georges garvaren

    Cock and Balls! Fleming could imagine over blown action set pieces if he felt inclined to. His Bond is a different Bond who avoided violence whenever he could. Lets not undermine the Creator lest we be punished.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Also, Harry

    by georges garvaren

    "A brutal cold blooded thug", "This is IAN FLEMING'S James Bond"!? Have you read a Fleming penned novel, Harry? You are so far from the mark its like you're Timothy Dalton. Yeesh.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 8:36 a.m. CST

    I've read Fleming's Bond

    by Asaraiel

    And Harry's pretty much right. This Bond is adjusted for the inflation of the times as far as his brutality, but the character is right. Craig's is closest.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9 a.m. CST

    Fleming > Rowling & Whoever Wrote "Twilight"

    by My Mom Is A Whore

    You all know it. In fact, this statement is so obvious I don't know why I wasted three minutes writing it out.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:06 a.m. CST

    I only read the beginning of the review to avoid anyy spoilers b

    by Shepard Wong

    I read enough to get what I was looking for from AICN. I was hopeful this film is better than mainstream film critics are saying it is. Looks like it is. The review in the Philly Daily News is pretty bad but the reviewer is complaining about having to remember details from CR, like that is an unreasonable expectation for an audience. Pathetic. How do idiots like that get jobs reviewing films for a major market newspaper.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Just to be clear - Everyone at AICN loves QoS?

    by Brody77

    Wow, I just....I really dunno what to say. I'm the first to admit that, despite often disagreeing with the reviewers here, I'm nowhere near as good at writing as you guys. BUT - I stand by my original (and often flamed) remarks from 31st Oct - I hate this film. Badly edited, badly directed, poor acting, action scenes were mostly a mess, Fields looked like an underager sneaking into a club, the list goes on. I LOVE the Opera scene and to a lesser extent the opening car chase, and Judi Dench owned (as always) but Craig was rotten in this, the chick from Hitman was dreadful & the villain made Le Chifre seem like the scariest guy alive. (the Roman Polanski reference from Mori had me laughing) Now, you lot keep saying the same thing - that this is a continuation from CR, how at the end this is "Bond as we know him" blah blah blah. Ok, cast your minds back to Casino Royale's release. There were questions raised - why does he only say "Bond, James Bond" at the end and get the theme? Well, in interviews with all the main players, it was said that CR was about his journey to become the Bond we know, and by the end of CR and he says it, you know he's there. So, what, in QoS he's starting the journey over again? I really wish Martin Campbell hadn't passed on this film, cos in his hands it would have been brilliant, after all, he did Goldeneye & Casino Royale.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:40 a.m. CST

    This site doesn't want negative reviews of this film

    by DannyOcean01

    You send them your view a week ago, and does it go up on the site as a counterpoint to most of the positive stuff we've seen on here? Does it fuck. But wait, is that an ad for the film on the site? Oh, but yes, of course it is.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:47 a.m. CST

    I wouldn't see it til...

    by DC Films

    ... i got the best seats in Leicester Square and i'm there tomorrow - can't wait!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:59 a.m. CST

    I have seen..

    by rost

    QoS with M beside me and she was whispering her name into my left ear but I can only hear with my right.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:03 a.m. CST

    yeah getting a bit sick of this...

    by mynemaborat

    it was funny at first... but now its just pathetic. i just hope u do good things with your money harry. and moriarty its bad enough that you piss on your credibility with your own review, but you don't have to come onto the talkback with harry's token lovefest and further proclaim your love for this mediocre movie. there are so many negative reactions and reviews around the place... but what have we got here? nothing but praise from the top few contributers to the site... no balance, no objectivity. thank god most people know to take the reviews from this site with a grain of salt

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:07 a.m. CST

    and harry

    by mynemaborat

    thinking that by throwing in a reference about sony not wanting you to see the movie early is a sly attempt to imply that there's absolutely no favouritism going on here is laughable... that sort of obvious crap makes haggis's work seem nuanced and subtle, rather than a sledgehammer over the head

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:23 a.m. CST

    DannyOcean01 & mynemaborat

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    You guys should get a room. Seriously.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Defending Ebert

    by elBox

    I've seen the movie and read the reviews on AICN and Roger Ebert's review and I hate to say it... but I think Ebert's closer to the mark. In his review he says, "James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance. He exists for the foreplay and the cigarette." Roger couldn't be more right. I enjoyed QoS but it just didn't feel like a Bond film to me. It is a good action movie and bad Bond movie. Where is Bond's intelligence evident in this movie. I would make a better Double O than this Bond. The first scene of the movie with the car chase made me think of Bad Boys II and not Ronin. This movie isn't even as smart as the Bourne series, so I don't thing that is a good comparison either. Look, the bar was set high with Casino Royale. In that movie Bond outlasted and outsmarted the villians. Here, he's an assassin. Plain and simple. He kills bad people. BOND IS NOT AN ASSASSIN. Why train a guy his whole life, give him access to all the information and technology available and then make him an assassin. Anybody can do that. So... please stop hating on Ebert or saying that he doesn't understand that Bond has changed. He knows that he's changed. He was supposed to be smarter, faster, and more lethal... not just more lethal.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Haven't seen it yet but I agree with your assessment

    by The Funketeer

    At least your assessment of this Bond vs. the others. I like that we're seeing him at the beginning of his career and that we know what he'll become even if he doesn't yet. That's not to say he'll end up being Roger Moore or Sean Connery but that he'll grow to be more suave and sophisticated and learn how to play people with more elegance. Right now, he's a blunt instrument but he'll sharpen as he grows into his role.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:40 a.m. CST

    I'll say this now:

    by maelstrom_ZERO

    . . .I've never seriously watched any of the Bond movies. I mean, I saw random segments of Brosnan in Goldeneye and such, but I never really paid any attention. And then I read Fleming's Casino Royale. And then I saw Casino Royale. . .and I was amazed. Because the brutally adept, relentlessly driven MI6 agent in Fleming's book was flawlessy translated to film. If Quantum of Solace portrays Bond in the way that Fleming envisioned him, then I will be satisfied, and invisible cars be damned.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Mr Nice Gaius

    by DannyOcean01

    I presume you've seen the film and can therefore comment on its quality? I bet you my last dollar you think its as mediocre as I, and many others, know it to be. It's a schizophrenic mess, not knowing whether it's classic or reboot Bond, and stuffed to the brim with poorly shot and edited action and some utterly bizarret crosscutting from Forster. Seriously, wtf was going on with that confrontation at the end of the Opera sequence? It was like bad theatre. But yeah, if you don't want to believe Harry is whoring this site out yet again, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. You can continue throwing out the tired old 'get a room' catchphrases if you want.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Hahaahaha Kubrick

    by DannyOcean01

    Yeah, the opera sequence is like Kubrick. As in, Eyes Wide Shut Kubrick. Melodramatic and oh so proud of its own uptheassery.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:49 a.m. CST

    No, actually I DID come here to see what you thought

    by g0dai

    of the Star Trek preview. I already know I'll be seeing a kickass Bond movie!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:01 a.m. CST

    This is Harry site and he is of course entitled to say whatever.

    by emeraldboy

    he wants about any films he likes. Good or bad. Look I will be the first to admit that Bond got bloated from Roger Moore to Pierce brosnan. no question. Everything was excess. even the pre-opening credits got longer. I loved the opening of Casino royale. this was darker, gritter, bond. this was a man who threw an assailant around the room before shoving the assailants head in the toilet. He was moody bond. Shadowy bond. He didnt saw much. but I loved the bit where just before killing his second kill he uttered the word considerably....and that was all. I can understand that there are some who dont want bond ending up doing a jack bauer and crying like a baby. That is not the british way. and will never happen. IT would have been far better I think to have dominic greene as an eco-terrorist. in a fight club way.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:03 a.m. CST

    No Gun Barrel opening?

    by TheDoctor73

    I heard there is no Gun Barrel opening? Is this true?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:06 a.m. CST


    by Smerph

    I am so bored of people telling me I don't "understand this movie" because I don't like it. Do you know how patronising that shit is? I like a realistic Bond, I like a fantasy Bond; I'm really not that particular; I LOVE Bond movies. The execution QoS was ropey, the narrative muddled. I was hyped to the hilt for this movie because Casino Royale was so good, but this failed to deliver. Do you understand?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:07 a.m. CST


    by Smerph

    The gun barrel sequence is at the end of the film before the closing credits. No one I've spoken to so far can give me a decent reason just why they decided to depart from 40 years of tradition.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Action sequences as the 4 Elements

    by DannyOcean01

    I remember seeing an interview with Forster and he was describing the action sequences in the film as depicting the 4 elements or some twaddle. I mean wow, a boat chase, a plane chase, a foot chase and a car chase. I've never seen a full set in a Bond film before....oh wait, we all have. And I don't think any Bond director would have been so pretentious to suggest that was their intention.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Here was Felix Leiter:

    by ricarleite

    "Tell me what you know!" - "No." - "Tell me what you know!" - "No." - "Tell me what you know!" - "... ok. alright." WHY?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:21 a.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I'm just amused by the AICN whored out-conspiracy posts. It never ceases to amaze which movies and subsequent reviews bring about such highly presumptuous and dubious Talkbackers such as yourself and mynemaborat.<P>You have your opinion of QoS and that's great. Too bad that Harry and Mori seem to disagree with you.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST


    by ricarleite

    It's at the end, faster, and it morphs into the movie's title, GOD knows why. Just to piss us off.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Mr Nice Gaius

    by DannyOcean01

    It's not simply that they're reviews are positive they're outright defending the movie? I mean surely you can see how that looks when they've got ads plastered across the site? Positivity is one thing, acting like a member of the marketing team is another. And c'mon, AICN has become known for this kind of thing. It's not like you get mass accusations of whoredom on other popular movie sites. But seriously, watch the movie. I'd be interested to see what you think.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    So, if they have adds on this site, they're NOT supposed to like the movie?<P>Did you see THE DARK KNIGHT, Danny? AICN had adds for that film and the Staff loved it. However, not everyone in Talkback had the same opinion (though they were few and far between).

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:43 a.m. CST

    The 'traditions' of movie Bond led us to invisible cars!!!!

    by Gabba-UK

    which made die another day a very silly movie (other than Halle Berry being shit and some epically bad CGI). These last two movies have stripped away all that nonsence, which in my opinion detracted from an otherwise fine interpretation of Bond by Brosnen. I don't mean to come across as patronizing and if I am I'm sorry. But it's my opinion and experience so far, that if your perception of Bond is purely based on the films then you either don't 'get' (for lack of a better term) or don't like CR or QoS. It can't be a coincidence that with all my friends who like Bond, the ones that read Fleming like CS and QoS, the ones that haven't, don't. It's not scientific I know but discussion over a few pints in the pubs the last couple of weeks has led me to that conclusion.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:43 a.m. CST

    The way the bad guy screamed

    by Series7

    During the final fight seen was so weird. Well at least I think it was him screaming, it could have been bond, you never knew who was doing what during the fight scenes. Just a lot of shit flailing around.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:44 a.m. CST

    That's supposed to be "ads" with one "d".

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Mori, ilander66

    by Prague23

    I feel Bond's pain: he's being told to turn himself in and that doing so are 'orders.' However, given Bond's nature, a nature 'M' continues mentioning she 'understands,' why send Strawberry Fields, of all people, an 'account' in 'M's own words, to do this job? She's like a fish out of water for starters, with that silly trench coat and all, in the middle of South America. Of course seducing her is Bond's easiest way out of that 'spot' of trouble. But it seemed forced. From the script's POV. <p> After consideration:<p> When I say that QofS isn't as 'enjoyable' as Casino R, I don't mean the sequel isn't entertaining or as good quality, indeed, as you mention Mori, the stakes are much higher and the political, economic, contemporary contexts and such of the story (a word I'm using instead of plot) are indeed heightened, elevated and, frighteningly, realistic. Craig has taken Bond to new heights since the previous film and there are moments in QofS which are the most amazing of the two (specifically that TOSCA Opera scene in Vienna - I had Godfather 3 flashbacks). Bond certainly is being taken in new directions, perhaps truer to Fleming's character on page (I confess only ever reading 1 novel and it's been a good 15 years since and I couldn't even tell you which 1 it was at this point). QofS is a Bond film and a damn fine one. Craig is one hellava great Bond as well, cheers. I applaud the 'barely hanging on' aspect to the story and how MI6 is barely keeping up with the Quantum project (as I call it). <p> What I'm getting at is that this new vision is missing a bit of the old, can I say 'playfullness?' of some of the great Bond moments of previous films. Even during the direst of straits, Bond has always found a way to crack a joke - for the audience's sake. Craig is the fuckin man as Bond, and I love it! But I hope the next in the franchise lightens things up a little bit and that Bond's libido loosens up a bit too. Like ilander66 mentioned above, this Bond really lives in the moment and does understand that Death is always at his side. A fling here, 5 martini's there, sure, he's a man. But never forget that he's also JAMES Muthafuckin BOND and being so, in a film based on that character, WE want to have some fun too! We want the one liners, we want MORE THAN ONE sex scene and a hellava lot more skin! Even Craig's skin, for all those ladies and so-inclined fellas out there. So bring on the style as well as drama, but please pull from that deep well of Bond that which makes him such a frakin badass - a pursuit of pleasure along his road to revenge. Even Bond needs to have fun once in a while,.. while saving the world, of course!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:50 a.m. CST

    hat in many ways doesn’t resemble any of our previous Bonds.

    by Series7

    Yeah but it does resemble our previous Boring Ultimatium movies.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Biggest problem with this film

    by Series7

    Was in that opening scene on those roads in Italy. Those roads are always bumper to bumper traffic, there is no way Bond would be hauling ass down them. They should have done a case scene during Italian traffic, would have been a lot more interesting.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Reduced yourself to correcting typos

    by DannyOcean01

    Oh you win sir. I'll be jumping out the balloon now.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Um yeah, they were my typos...

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:01 p.m. CST

    The traditions of Bond is why we have a legacy

    by Smerph

    Die Another Day is an awful, awful movie. I've read a lot of Fleming and have a lot of appreciation for it (mainly Casino Royale and Moonraker), but I also have a lot of appreciation for non-Flemingesque Bond films such as The Spy Who Loved Me and GoldenEye. To repeat myself, I have no problems with the tone of this movie (similar to the adaptation of Casino Royale), just the messy narrative, weak villain and non-event ending. Licence to Kill did "revenge" far better. And, to all the people raving about this being the first Bond sequel, go and watch Diamonds are Forever. On second thoughts, don't; it's worse than Quantum of Solace.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST


    by DannyOcean01

    I seem to have confused myself with you. How awkward.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Harry, I agree a little and disagree a lot.. (** SPOILER ALERT**

    by Darth Valinorean

    ((** spoilers **)) Let me preface with my tremendous respect for your reviews and opinions. I entirely agree with you on the 'assassin Bond' that Fleming created that they brought to life here in this movie. But most other things you said about how this is 'nailing the perfect Bond' and 'great movie' etc., we have to disagree. The overall movie, while epic was a lame duck. Sure, I get it - this is about Bolivia. Its about water and about Quantum that controls governments and so on and so forth. We get it. But, read below please (Spoiler Material): I posted this on Capone's review and I submit it here as well - ((** spoilers **)) Wow ... I am stunned ((** spoilers **)) by Darth_Valinorean Nov 14th, 2008 09:48:31 AM I saw it last night at the midnight showing and I was pretty disappointed with the movie. I thought the plot had some serious weakness to it. Greene was NOT menacing at all after the setup of this uber-mensch organization. It almost felt easy, the way Bond took them out. The whole sequence with the plane in the canyons - that reminded me of Brosnan-Bond (which was okay then, but not after Casino Royale). The relationship with M needed to be fleshed out a lot more - clearly there is a lot more going on there. And Leiter seemed entirely constipated and the "buffoon CIA" agent with Leiter was beyond stupid. Also, I felt a bit of Tom Cruise Minority Report action in the MI-6 computer sequences. Overall, very patchy work and the building-jumping and fight scenes were a bad copy of the Bourne series. Now I realize that is 'realistic' but you have to be more creative. And the worst is these issues that I have are from a huge Bond fan and an avid supporter of Daniel Craig. Casino Royale gave Bond depth of character. This made him a cardboard sketch out on revenge and anger. Then show more of it beyond him on a killing spree with words, actions, nuances. The sequence with Mathis was good. Very good, but that was it. Heck, when M meets the Minister to give him an update, and he says "The fact that we don't even know this organization exists means it is not important" (I am paraphrasing) is beyond Grade-A Dunce!! Seriously.. but then, he IS a politician. So maybe I am wrong there. Olga Kurleyenko is smoking hot. But seemed 'attached' to the movie to get a girl in there. Seriously, watch this movie carefully and we'll realize that after Casino Royale, this is a royal disappointment. Definitely a Quantum of Disappointment here. I am stunned for AICN to like this movie so much. Wintercom says it right ... by Darth_Valinorean Nov 14th, 2008 09:52:41 AM One more serious annoyance: The opening credits and song - HORRENDOUS. What the heck was that? Just plain horrendous. ((** spoilers **)) First Chase Sequence ((** spoilers **)) by Darth_Valinorean Nov 14th, 2008 10:00:04 AM In Casino Royale, the first sequence where he chases the bad guy into the Embassy was brilliant. When that chap was using his brains and skills (and heck, they were indeed God given skills), Bond used his brute strength and broke down walls, shot through armies and just pushed on and on and on inspite of being on verge of exhaustion and the losing end and then finally blowing up the frikking embassy and popping a cork in the chap's head, we were part of that chase! Part of that kill! Part of that action. And we were stunned at the resolution of that situation. Here, the closest thing to that chase was the Mitchell Chase within the first 10 mts of the movie (after a car chase that was bland and cut too fast and unrealistic). Not even close to the earlier excitement of Casino Royale. Heck, Casino Royale was so much better.. I've moved onto thinking about the Airport Sequence in Miami and realizing that there was nothing like that in this movie. That script was definitely more "intelligent" and well thought out. Sorry friends, my disappointment is true and I wanted another Casino Royale.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Anglo/American split

    by coda_vaughn

    There seems to be an anglo-american split regarding Quantum of Solace. I'm from London, and everyone who I have spoken to about the film or seen it with absolutely hate it. Whereas, all the american reviewers seem to love it.. Personally, I reckon Quantam isn't a bad film, but its pretty superficial and light on the story. It felt a bit light the second matrix; lets just push the story along a bit and get to another fight... The biggest problem I think for anyone this side of the pond ( in England) is that Bond has really been turned into a typical hollywood action hero, which has kinda taken away the whole english gentleman/spy side of him. At least in Casino Royale he was actually fallible and felt a pain. Here he is just a terminator, bloody unstoppable. Takes the fun away a bit

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Anglo/American split

    by coda_vaughn

    There seems to be an anglo-american split regarding Quantum of Solace. I'm from London, and everyone who I have spoken to about the film or seen it with absolutely hate it. Whereas, all the american reviewers seem to love it.. Personally, I reckon Quantam isn't a bad film, but its pretty superficial and light on the story. It felt a bit light the second matrix; lets just push the story along a bit and get to another fight... The biggest problem I think for anyone this side of the pond ( in England) is that Bond has really been turned into a typical hollywood action hero, which has kinda taken away the whole english gentleman/spy side of him. At least in Casino Royale he was actually fallible and felt a pain. Here he is just a terminator, bloody unstoppable. Takes the fun away a bit

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:15 p.m. CST

    I'm a Brit

    by donkey_lasher

    ..and I said this was undeserving of it's rating by some. Shit, I bet half of the haters were numbskulls who didn't understand the plot. And surprise surprise, Harry and AICN reviewers and give it the justice is deserves. It's no classic, but it's better than Bourne 2 and 3 by a long fucking shot.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Harry... just great... and you even...

    by Noddy93

    worked "Blu-Ray" into the damned thing. Fuck dude... enough already.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:24 p.m. CST


    by donkey_lasher can so many overrate Bourne and underrate QOS? The first Bourne was good, bu the sequels were dire. BOURNE WISH 5 - A secret government agency cuts off Bourne's phone due to non payment - THIS TIME THEY WILL PAY

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Harry, just because they're linked doesen't meant it was done ri

    by JunoFallon

    I was SUPER charged to see this. I even went to a midnight screening and it was AWFUL. A train-wreck. Ignorant writing, terribly choppy editing, and it was full of dumb macguffin devices. Let's not forget the LUDICRIOUS "airplane carchase" or the fact that bond pulls a parachute ripcord three feet from the ground and lands with nary a broken bone or scratch. That whole scene was as hard to swallow as Indiana riding a flying fridge on a post nuke explosion. I'm not buying it. This movie was a wast of time and I want my money back.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Yeah but is this the same old

    by krushjudgement

    Formulaic crap that Casino Royale was promised not to be, but actually was?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Also as an adendum...

    by JunoFallon

    Dominic Green and his toupee wearing crony were in my opinion the least intimidating or even interesting villains possibly in the Bond canon. As easily and gracefully as Bond was able to dispatch virtually everyone in this film I found this fight with Dominic Greene completely unrealistic. Greene wouldn't have been able to get one punch off without getting his ass kicked. As far as we know he's not the typical "post military background" or military training type. He's a money man and flimsy looking one at that. The whole thing was silly.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Yes, the movie is GOOD...

    by DiamondJoe

    ...but by no means will it ever be looked on as a classic Bond movie. The things that really elevated Royale were the scenes where you got a glimpse of Bond as a man, not a franchise superhero - the quieter moments in his life. I think the best scene in Royale is when they're in the shower. It's beautifully filmed, acted and scored, and you genuinely get a look into the cost to his soul and the people around him of what Bond does, and is. The scene where he goes to his room after having killed some goons, cleans his injuries in front of the mirror, and gulps down a stiff scotch while he looks into his own eyes - fucking MAGIC. QOS just doesn't have enough of those glimpses into Bond that makes us buy in to the CHARACTER as opposed to the brand. Instead, its back to killing people by the dozen, surviving any possible predicament (the parachute fall, anyone?), and an exploding hideout. Craig is, for me, the best Bond by a fucking country mile, but they need to invest in him rather than blowing us off the screen every 30 seconds. Loved the scenes with Mathis, Leiter and M and thought Kurelyenko was terrific - bring her back. Also loved how Bond handled Greene at the end, totally bucked the trend of the traditional villain death scene. Opera sequence: Near genius, and let's have some more art-house shit like that please. But they really need to restore the scaled-back elegance that was present in Royale and totally RESIST the temptation to make each one "bigger and better", for that way invisible cars and damnation awaits.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Actually, we DO want to hear about the trailers!!!

    by TheGhostWhoLurks

    Are they online yet, and if NOT, how WERE they??? Give us some cool news!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:51 p.m. CST

    I liked the film a lot!

    by Zardoz

    I thought it was a great action film, even if the action was hard to follow at times. I liked the plot and characters, and felt that it was definitely a great middle film for a trilogy. (fingers crossed!) I especially liked the ending, where after travelling the world and killing everyone in sight, Bond finds Vesper's true "murderer" with relative ease. It was a very dark and appropriately bittersweet ending. What I didn't like: the end battle. Too much of a throwback to the old "blow up the evil genius' master lair" from the old films, which is really a cliche in itself. (plus the SFX models looked like crap!) All in all, I thought it was kick-ass and a worthy follow-up to Casino Royale. I can't wait for part three!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST


    by TheDoctor73

    Have the Trekie base taken a huge hit? Batman Trailers leaked all over the place. This thing has been playing for a week and no leak yet? I hate Monday trailer releases. The Trek Trailer won't make a diffrenece for a Bond movie. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Paramount must not like the movie. Pushed back. No footage shown. Close Up pictures instead of wideshots. Is that what the movie is, nothing but close ups? Nothing for Comic Con or the Trek con in August. The ill-fated Mother's Day release?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 1:07 p.m. CST

    From Russia with Love is the best Bond film so far.

    by tempurasan

    IN that film, Bond actually is a goddamn spy and not some stupid pitbull biting everyone. That's the bastardized modern day version of a "spy". Make a ruckus and hope the villains come out and play. That isn't how it works. Villains don't wanna play. They wanna make money and have tons of power. They do that by being invisible. In Russia with Love, Bond wasn't given much, but he uses everything. He manipulates his woman, he follows up on his lead. And the BEST thing about Russia with Love is the villain. Mutherfucker doesn't want a stand off with Bond, he wants to slit his throat while Bond is sleeping. He shadows Bond, watching his every move. When they meet, he doesn't twirl his mustache and say "We meet again!", he plays coy and strikes when Bond lets down his gaurd for a brief second. And that fight in the train between them? Greatest fight scene in all of Bond's movie. Hard hitting, well shot and edited, and most importantly of all... REALISTIC. Most people now thinks Casino Royale is the best Bond film, when they already made the best Bond film by the second try. But the best thing about Bond is that you can interpret him in a lot of way, but it doesn't mean every intepretation is right. I haven't seen this one yet, so I won't judge. But from reading your review, I think they got it wrong.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Ah, Danny...

    by drew mcweeny

    ... you ignorant slut. <P>Considering how much time you've actually spent talking to me, I'm surprised you're going straight to that feeble, infantile "THERE'S A CONSPIRACY!" thing. Really? That's how you handle disagreeing with someone about a movie? You have to accuse them of things? <P>Dude, I didn't even know Harry's opinion of the film until his review went up. We didn't discuss it ahead of time. We never do. I was glad to see someone else liked it, but I was also fully prepared to be left hanging out there alone on this one. <P>I don't care if someone else does or doesn't agree. I don't care if every single critic in England feels different. As a Fleming fanatic, I think what they're doing is great. This isn't a great film, but it's a pretty darn good one, and if you don't like it... then fair enough. <P>But seriously... tone down the crybaby "WAAAH! SOMEONE PAID YOU OFF!" noise. It just makes you look like one of those people who think we didn't land on the moon or that George Bush personally blew up the Twin Towers by remote. Not everything is a conspiracy. <P>I suspect what really happened is you're all butt-hurt we didn't run your review. Sorry, dude. I can guarantee that someone who accuses me of the kind of ethical slime you're accusing me of won't get published in the future, though, so don't come back in six months, "Nick De Costa," and act like now you want to be published. You can't have it both ways.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Mori serves Danny a casino royale with cheese...

    by My Mom Is A Whore

    ..followed by a fist sandwich and a healthy serving of The Truth.<p>That sentence made no sense. I just wanted to write it.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Harry Has it Wrong

    by Roborob

    The mess that is QOS is many things but great no, It is as good as the Bourne Movies but no better but the XXX movies are far better. The movie fans don't want the book Bond they want Movie Bond and while opening weekend figures are good wait for the return rate I don't think they will be as good.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:11 p.m. CST

    I thought this Bond was evolving?

    by BobParr

    By the end of CASCINO ROYALE he was almost that same kind of Bond we knew. I thought Craig was supposed to be a young, unrefined Bond who slowly smooths out his rough edges. This sounds like he's back to being a "blunt instrument" again as he was at the beginning of CASINO. That is disappointing.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:13 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:25 p.m. CST


    by Darth_Kaos

    Marc Foster did a good job with QOS. He's not Campbell, but it was better than what I was expecting. I hope they ended the whole Vesspa thing and start with the stand alones. It's time to get em rockin' and rockin' hard.<br><br> Also it was nice seeing the standard bond walk, even though it was at the end. I wonder if that's going to be the new standard or they plan to put it back where it belongs.<br><br> Anyway, as a Bond fan, it was great. It was pretty action packed. Craig is BOND!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:25 p.m. CST

    No Trek trailer for me

    by Cartagia

    I was PISSED.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Bravo, Harry

    by Star Hump

    Your enthusiasm for film is your best trait. This is one of the best reviews you've done. Infectious. I now want to see QoS now more than ever.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:29 p.m. CST


    by Darth_Kaos

    I saw it, and I wasn't impressed. However, this is only the first full trailer, so I'm hoping to see something that get's me excited for the movie. I think J.J. did an excellent job with MI3. But what i saw looked boring and uninspiring. I still have hope.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Bond Conventions

    by TheDoctor73

    Between QoS and Casino, I have a feeling this was one prequel movie cut in half. I hope the gun barrel at the end means that Bond is fully Bond. I understand Moneypenny, but why wasn't Q in Casino? The scene were bond is having a heart attack and uses the defibulator (a gadget) would have been perfect to into 'Q'. I want to see a return to Connery gadgets. The GPS tracking, folding sniper rifles, explosive powder in suitcase, money hidden in suitcase. From Russia with Love had the most realistic Bond gadgets.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:41 p.m. CST


    by skimn

    Could you request a new animation please???

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:43 p.m. CST

    This is not a movie for the cine illiterate....

    by earlfist

    My faith in aicn has been restored by the elite of this site and their on the money reviews. I think QOFS IS A FUCKING AWESOME

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Quantum of Solace

    by Jason B. Swaim

    Starring Lloyd Christmas.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 3:42 p.m. CST

    ummm Mori?


    Bush did personally blow up the World Trade Center, that was his secret twin reading to children.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:09 p.m. CST

    people complaining about lack of story...

    by TheDark0Knight

    this is a straight continuation of Casino Royale... think of it as Lord of The Rings Two Towers. Harry no doubt one of your best reviews.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Quantum of Blah

    by blackmantis

    This movie didn't do much for me. They are blatantly trying to ape the Jason Bourne movies, but they don't have the central hook that made the Bourne films compelling, the search for his identity. So you have a sub-par Bourne film mixed in with sub-par Bond conventions and end up with not much really. I like Craig, but I am starting to see that his take on Bond could get boring. If they are truly going to challenge the Bourne films, or even The Dark Knight, they are going to have to increase the psychological pressure on Bond to make him a compelling character. Otherwise, they'd be better of going back to making live action Bond cartoons.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Book Bond=/=Cinematic Bond

    by Prossor

    Even when he was in his younger career Bond was never this hotheaded impulsive lug, the whole Bond Begins turn they've decided for after being influenced by Nolan's Batman is not for Bond, Bond isn't some superhero who suddenly became Bond or achieved it in the arc of 3/4 missions like they've envisioned it now, he became who he is like a regular human shaped from his life experiences, his youth, parent's deaths, his days at cambridge, the navy and war. <p> Cinematic and Books two different mediums and you know that one doesn't work exactly like the other. It's because of the cinematic Bond why we are here 50 years later able to even witness the Craig era. If they had made the character like the books, a dour grim individual then audiences would never have accepted it, just like they didn't with Dalton's hardcore Fleming Bond whose movies had the lowest grosses of the whole series, no one wants to see that, he looked like he had a stick up his ass the whole time. You need that important contrasting dynamic, he can't always be frowning and looking pissed because you get deluded by it to where all of their badassery just gets tired. Connery, Moore, Brosnan on the other hand had the politeness, smoothness and charm but when they'd get serious and the violence started it would get greater effect. Moore was known as the lighthearted Bond but when he'd go cold he had a stare that would make Dalton cower in fear. Same with connery who was all smiles gentleman to a lady but then had no trouble using them as a human shield the next second. And as for Bourne they're shooting these movies ridiculously, over-edited and with the michael j. fox camera again. it's not cool or badass it's just fucking annoying. Brosnan in GoldenEye when he squared off with 006 in the end now that was the way to shoot a fucking modern bond fight.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by jpsell45

    If the review you turned in to the guys was anything like your ranting up above then they had good reason not to put it on the site. Everything you said above has been covered in other reviews you unoriginal bastard. Think before biting the hand that feeds you piece of repeating shit.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Mori, if you are a Fleming fan...

    by DiamondJoe

    ...then I'm even more baffled why you're banging the drum for QOS. Royale? Yes - there, at last, is Ian Fleming's Bond in an Ian Fleming story that effortlessly feels as though it came from Fleming's head. But QOS is Fleming's Bond having wandered into a decent, if run-of-the-mill slam-bang action flick with an iffy plot, punctuated with some admittedly great scenes. But I can't help feeling that there was a really exciting, fresh opportunity to make a truly unprecedented Bond movie after Royale had changed the playing field, and they've simply opted for 'safe' mode.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:26 p.m. CST



    We didn't land on the moon Apollo 15 in 1971, two years after they claim.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:30 p.m. CST


    by bdhthx1138

    Man what a let down! I understand to update the character but to pretty much erase all that came before it is sheer stupidity and could destroy the franchise. Dont get me wring...I was OK with the last movie...its actually one of my top 5 bond movies...this one is near the bottom. The direction is weak as well as the story. Why the need to do a sequel??? Stupid...move the character in the right direction (i.e. Globe trotting superspy who has a thing for beautiful women etc) and bring in the supporting characters that populate the 'Bond world'. No Q? Moneypenny? His Martini????? come on?? This is like watching Jason Bourne...and if i WANTED THAT I WOULD THROW IN A DVD. It would be like Indiana Jones with out his whip...or Star Wars without lightsabers...come on now!!!! ALSO...This movie feels like they cut our a BUNCH of stuff to make it good or something. Right now its passable. Judi is great...and Craig is great in the part. But...Now let him BE the part. And by the way...the shaky camera shit has got to go. Id like to see the stunt...not guess at what just happened.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:41 p.m. CST


    by Archive

    Now I have this awful image of twin Bushlings running around the White House with ten year old bodies and the face of Dubya as we know him. "Poppy, give me some candy! Give me some candy, Poppy!!!"

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:47 p.m. CST


    by I Own You

    Oh noes, people like the movie!!! Anyhooo... Am I the only one who felt the music cues called back to the classic 60's Connery movies? It's done in throwaway connecting scenes... the car going into the tunnels, the boat going to see his old 'friend' (trying to be un-spoilery here)... but if you listen, it's that calm, lush string music with waa-waa horns. To me, that said BOND. I mean, deconstruct it all you want and point to how the pieces may be from various influences, but as a whole, with that music? Oh yeah, this is a BOND movie.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:51 p.m. CST

    I am off to see this film again

    by emeraldboy

    tomorrow. With my regular cinema going pal. Who is a huge bond fan. just to point out. the other person who i saw the film with is female. and is a member of a support that I helped set up.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 4:59 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    The sound you hear is the "WHOOSH!" being made my Buzz Aldrin's fist right before it makes contact with your face.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Once again Harry has told us everything he liked

    by skimn

    about the movie, yet is vague enough to tell us nothing about the movie. That is one unique talent.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:10 p.m. CST

    The right and wrong way to do a Bond revenge flick...

    by GreatWhiteNoise

    Right way = Quantum Of Solace. Wrong way = Licence To Kill. Tell me I'm wrong.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Not a fan of the shaky cam action scenes.

    by Shermdawg

  • Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy editing. Frantic fastcutting does NOT equal action. It's an artificial attempt to inject pace into scenes that did not need the childish hyperactive A.D.D. editing.<p> <p>Either that or some of the stunts and setpieces went badly wrong and they could never manage a clean take of more than a few seconds.<p> <p>Was it pretty good ? Yeah. The brutality was welcome when we could see the action and Craig carries the Movie with help from Dench.<p> <p>Was it better the Casino ? Nope.<p> <p>The Quantum group is a nice antagonist for future Movies though.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Casino Royale was a bit overrated

    by jimmy_009

    Awesome opening, then trails off in the middle. By the end it seemed like all the energy had been sapped from the film. Good retooling though.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Yeah but does Bond make a salad dressing?

    by Charles Grady

    I remember reading one of those John Gardner novels, and somehow in the midst of a Bond story, Bond actually spends like two pages making a SALAD DRESSING. I'm like, WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?

  • the way this film was cut - it's kinda hard to follow sometimes and maybe people just didn't GET IT? <p> I don't want to sound all condescending here and forgive me if I have insulted your intelligence - I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the EDITOR. Now, I can't say if he was following orders from a director who was out of his depth or (what I suspect is the truth) the director was LOCKED OUT of the editing process by the producers. <p> Either way, this film suffered for the editing. That and the casting. Did anyone get serious Steve Buscemi vibes from Mathieu Amalric? I found it so distracting. That and the Ukranian chick. <P> ******SPOILERS HERE******* <p> I thought she was playing a Russian for most of the film until near the end Bond says she's actually Bolivian Secret Service (?!) - that was, again, something that was confusing.<p> Im' with you 100% Harry on the STORY and the way they've chosen to realise the Bond character, but this film was far from perfect and I hope the next one will be better. <p> I suspect it will and history will judge this one as a rather awkward misstep that ALMOST was a stumble...

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:10 p.m. CST

    I know I'm opening a whole different can of worms

    by skimn

    but it was Spielberg's staging and editing of action scenes (rocket sled fight, motorcycle chase, jungle truck), which were classically timed and photographed so you could tell what was happening in Crystal Skulls that made it an oasis in a desert of Bourne/Bay herky, jerky, .068 second cut shot action sequences.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Leave Crystal Skull out of this!

    by G100


  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Mathew Vaughn for the next Bond!

    by MrClark

    I really think he should be considered to helm the next one. He's very talented, hes not a big name yet, he knows Craig and they did great work on Layer Cake, hes English, and I think hes got the skill set for this kind of tent pole project. Forster was too much the art house director and really doesn't know how to shoot this kind of film, Vaughn I think has the right balance of substance and panache to pull off a Bond film

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Vaughn would be good choice

    by skimn

    Stardust was suprisingly entertaining, and his connection with Craig doesn't hurt. Could you imagine a Guy Ritchie Bond? I don't know if that would be incredibly bad or good...

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Guy Ritchie Bond

    by skimn

    half of it would need subtitles.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:47 p.m. CST

    No thanks on Ritchie

    by MrClark

    I like most of Ritchie's work but Bond just wouldnt work for him, I don't think Bond wold ever actually leave London in a Ritchie film. I think Vaughn is a much better choice.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:52 p.m. CST

    After I saw this movie

    by Series7

    My first thought was, I thought Ultimatum was going to be the last Bourne movie. Really surprised they made Bourne British in this one though.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Craig is NOT Fleming's Bond

    by superunknown85

    Fleming NEVER envisioned Bond as a musculed-up thug who's virtually mute, indestructible, and emotionless. Fleming's Bond is erudite, classy, suave, calm, and only has a hint of sociopathic tendencies; they never overtake him. With Craig they just went completely overboard with his anger and menace. He's too robotic and cold; in the books, Bond always hated killing people. Craig's Bond relishes it.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7 p.m. CST


    by LeSange

    First of all, this movie kicked a lot of ass! It was a good action flick, though, as someone who lived in Bolivia for 9 years, let me assure you that it didnt really capture the place. I am sure the same can be said of most places Bond movies have been set in the past as well. Still, it was a very entertaining movie, so much so that there is really no reason to complain no matter what issue you take with it. After all, isnt the whole purpose of movies to be entertaining? If you are not entertained by QoS, then your expectations are probably a little whack.

  • the chick that (nearly?) gets raped totally flashes her bearded clam at the audience, Sharon Stone style!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Good action flick, not much Bond tho

    by br1947

    I'm sure in retrospect after the next one comes out we'll see how awesome QoS was as a setup, but as a stand alone Bond film it really didn't hold up well. There wasn't much Bond, just a very angry, very pissed off man killing everyone is sight. I think it was Mori who said something like 'it had to happen this way to resolve the lose ends from Casino Royale' and I can agree, I just wish they would have done something like the Matrix II & III and release back to back movies close together.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:21 p.m. CST

    QoS made me wish...

    by The Goon

    that Batman was a killer.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 7:44 p.m. CST

    Star Trek trailer.

    by Smashing

    Well most of it.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 8:03 p.m. CST

    that idiot on 'good day l.a.'

    by crankyoldguy

    dorothy lucy, who makes sam rubin out here on channel 5 look like a film scholar, said she didn't like it, it 'wasn't James Bond.' Twit. Much as I love the Connery films (all of 'em), liked Dalton and Brosnan, Craig as this new incarnation of Bond is indeed very close to Fleming's novels, albeit a Bond in progress. I hope to catch Quantum this weekend. And the nutjobs here who cry plant/payola/etc. over the reviews are...nutjobs.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Full trailer

    by Smashing

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 8:41 p.m. CST

    Aunt May II: Your M is a Werewolf

    by CherryValance

    That's what I think they should have called it. Too much stuff with chicks especially M. I like Judi Dench but playing M as a nervous grandma who needs her Calgon? Puhleeze. And there was too much of that Bond girl too. James Bond is just supposed to molest chicks a little bit and kick them to the curb until he finds another one, then rinse and repeat. I think the premise of what the bad guy was doing must have been something they had to come up with after Superman Returns already used their superawesome Krytponite landmass villain idea. I like Daniel Craig and Casino Royale was pretty good, but they've got to do better for him storywise. And poor Jeffrey Wright. He's one of my favorite actors, but what has he done in these movies but have a beard?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Thanks, Smashing. And Harry and Mori

    by gotilk

    Congrats, guys. First off, Harry and Mori, you have a NON Bond fan worked up to see a Bond film. And Smashing, thanks for the Trek trailer. That first link looked great. I'm excited. The second one was stuttery, even when it loaded to the end. But thanks, it looks stunning.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Yet another incriminating association with a radical Chicagoan. <P> We demand to know the full extent of your relationship. What kind of devious discussions took place during commercial breaks?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:01 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    but Bourne still pwns shaky-cam-wannabe Bond.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:03 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Mori, you weren't far off the mark there. Not at all.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:11 p.m. CST

    Ignorant Slut?

    by DannyOcean01

    Such words. Was 'the bitch is dead' one of yours too?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:14 p.m. CST


    by DannyOcean01

    You got me there pal. But then I guess that's why the majority of these reviews are positive because, ummm, that way they don't regurgitate any of the negative criticism that surfaced, ummmm, 2 weeks ago in the UK.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Lead "expert" of fake moon landing conspiracy theorists...

    by chromedome a retired "aerospace worker" who lives in a camping trailer in the desert with 47 cats.<p>Even HE wouldn't see a conspiracy here!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Good movie, but Maniaq is correct about the editing

    by chromedome

    on occasion you just could not tell who was doing what, whether Bond was being chased or chasing.<p>I liked the film, I think Craig is GREAT as Bond--pitch perfect great, and I like the realism instead of gadgets.<p>That said, the airplane bit felt tacked on, the desert hotel looked like flat facade, and the often seen desert walk with machine gun scene never occurs--distracting crap, that: there is a moment where he could have picked up a dead guy's gun, but didn't. Probably some cutting room floor fubar thing--which brings us full circle to editing...

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Maxwell Smart (the original one) could take out...

    by crankyoldguy

    Bourne. And say "sorry about that..."

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Stay at the Luxurious Desert View Exlpoding Hotel

    by G100

    Maaaaan that Hotel seemed to have been constructed from dynamite walls, nitro-glycerine flooring and a creamy hydrogen tanks filling.<p> <p>And it DID look like a facade. A very Explodey facade.<p> <p>Bond's final fight with Greene was nicely done though. ***SPOILER*** you REALLY felt that Axe go into the foot.. Ouch!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Stay at the Luxurious Desert View *Exploding* Hotel

    by G100

    Dasmn Keyboard!

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Fred just saw it

    by Freds_Balls_in_a_Mason_Jar

    Fred enjoyed it. Fred's girlfriend said it was just ok though - she thought it was just fighting and action and not much story. Fred thought it had a good story, but it is not as good as Casino Royale. The comparison to Bourne is only superficial, Bond has more depth. What people seem to forget is that this is a series that is re-imagining Bond altogether. The first movie was Bond getting his license. This is maturation as a double O. The third - if the progression continues, should see him as a complete double O.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 10:51 p.m. CST

    QOS has the BIGGEST PLOT HOLE in history!

    by Robstar

    Okay, everyone is thrilled that this is a direct sequel to CASINO, but there is one glaring inconsistancy that must be adressed. In the last film, Bond is snatched by LeChiffre, and is tortured. He takes a couple of fish hooks to the balls. Now if QOS takes place two days later, HOW does he fuck Strawberry Fields? He JUST had his manhood thrashed several times with a giant fishermans hook! He's gotta be hurting! This is a new level of unbelievability for the bond universe.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Sorry folks, this one was awful

    by Wes_Reviews_

    Marc Forster was the completely wrong choice for this film. Some of the worst action scenes in the entire series. Seriously. Watch any action scene from the previous films, wide eyed, and then shake your head in a "no" fashion repeatedly during the entire sequence...that's what these action scenes are like. they leave off the third act? You can't tell me it was meant to end like that. These filmmakers who insist on a "realistic" Bond are neutering a great character. Here's hoping they find someone with balls who understands the franchise and why it has endured so long. I can tell you one thing, a realistic Bond series wouldn't have lasted 20+ films. This one didn't even feel like a James Bond movie. What a complete waste. The few loose ends created by Casino Royale, an entire film should not have been based on. The Greene/Quantum stuff felt like a complete afterthought..."oh yeah, we gotta have a villain too". Inept, pretentious, and down right dull. Yes folks, bet you'd never think a Bond film would be capable of that, did ya?

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:12 p.m. CST

    *shakes his monitor for realism* (re: shakycam shennanigans)

    by Wes_Reviews_

    Listen closely, studio PERIOD. If it takes a gimmick like shaking the camera to add "intensity" and "realism" to your film, then your script is down right shitty. I have yet to see a film that benefited from shakycam. Even in the most rapid of sequences of Transformers, you can still tell what the fuck is going on. Saving Private Ryan...spielberg still lets the camera linger on an individual or particular shot to get the message across. Quantam of Solace might very well have some of the best action sequences ever staged of the series...but we'll never know because the director and editor cut the fuck out of the scenes, rendering them incomprehensible. Seriously...the fights are worse than those in Daredevil. People who don't know how to stage fights and action scenes cling to shakycam to cover their tracks. End of story.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:15 p.m. CST

    And furthermore (re: that "song" that began the film)

    by Wes_Reviews_

    The opening song was beyond shitty. Seriously. David Arnold gave us a great score for the film. I noticed his name though, was curiously missing from the song's credits. Thankfully, he steered clear of using very many cues from it in the actual score. "Another Way to Die" is way worse than Madonna's "Die Another Day" dreck.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:15 p.m. CST



  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Leaves talkback with one thought...

    by Wes_Reviews_

    How fucking hard is it to make a good James Bond movie, I mean, seriously. QoS is a damn shame. Craig is okay in the role, but come on, "Fleming's Bond". I think not. He's Dalton's Bond hopped up on roids. Nothing more. I enjoyed Dalton's Bond, so I'm enjoying Craig's somewhat...he just needs a hell of a better movie next time out than QoS.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:21 p.m. CST

    Tossed in the dumpster

    by browsingjohn

    ***SPOILER*** When Bond throws Mathis' corpse in a garbage dumpster ("it's what he would have wanted"), I couldn't help but think that is exactly what director Marc Forster did to this Bond movie. I pray they bring Martin Campbell back for the next one! In addition, I was not impressed by the car chase, foot chase, boat chase, plane chase, , and exploding Hotel finale (built "Western style" with just a facade it seemed). Each of these action scenes seemed to lack anything inventive or new that we haven't seen numerous times before. I did, however, enjoy and respect Daniel Craig's performance -- the only quantum of solace in this otherwise abyssmal film.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:33 p.m. CST


    by Wes_Reviews_

    All I saw were a dizzying series of close-ups of propellers, wings, and wheels, set to the ever exciting music of David Arnold. Chases? Might've been some chases in the film. I sure as hell couldn't tell you who or what was chasing or being chased, though. And just so everyone knows this is a "gritty" and "real" talkback, I will... *shakes monitor again for realism and intensity*

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Robster go back and rewatch CR

    by MrClark

    He doesnt get fish hooks in the balls he gets a giant fucking knotted rope. Not only that but he spent a considerable amount of time in the hospital directly after that. Then he spent (presumably) a week or so romancing Vesper before she kicked off. After that it was probably a couple days before he caught white. All told it was probably several weeks or maybe even a couple months from his torture to his banging Fields.

  • Nov. 14, 2008, 11:58 p.m. CST

    F*CK BOURNE!!!

    by Malebolgia

    not fit to be the crusty flake on Bond's hemmoroid!!!

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:09 a.m. CST

    I loved the movie but...

    by TeenAngst73

    ...I had the hardest time trying to figure out what was going on. Would it kill them next time to include a couple of lines to keep the audience on track on who is who and what is happening. I understand this Bond is all no-time to chat, gotta kill this guy now but I was SO confused throughout the entire thing. And everyone I went to see it with thought the same thing.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Yeah, no cues from "Another Way to Die"

    by BillEmic

    but did anyone else hear the cue from "You Know My Name" at one point in this film? Makes sense since David Arnold co-wrote the music, but it's interesting that he's still drawing on the last movie's song...

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:30 a.m. CST

    What was this movie about again?

    by marcspector

    I could not begin to tell you what this movie was about. Something about droughts in Bolivia and third world dictators who killed Vesper and - Oh look! An explosion! This is the height of mindless action. And not even GOOD action. It's clips. Little clips that we as the audience are required to logically string together because the filmmakers couldn't. If anyone can logically explain what happened in that sequence with Bond crashing through the windows and fighting the guy on the scaffolding, I will... Well, nothing. But I don't think it can be done.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Asexual Bond

    by marcspector

    I also just want to point out that Bond does a grand total of one girl in this film. (He kisses another. Maybe they will go to the prom next film.) However, he brutally murders about 80 guys. When did killing guys become more palatable in our culture than having sex with hot girls?

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:38 a.m. CST

    In case nobody sees it there:

    by Thrillho77

    I apologize for being wrong in saying that Olga Kurylenko wasn't in Max Payne. Sorry, Capone. I wasn't trying to sound like a know-it-all; I just actually believed that you had that shit heap mixed-up with "Hitman." <p> Considering I haven't seen either of those sorry excuses for film, I was just going by cursory knowledge. And I was wrong. <p> DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD is a cunt for calling me a cunt.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:43 a.m. CST

    People not getting the plot....

    by chaseguy17

    I won't argue if it's a good or bad movie...but with so many people confused with what was going on...then I would have thought all of this action would be perfect for you slow people. The plot was easy to follow. Greene had a organization where he was bringing in large donations and investments to fund his operations. He set up a plan where he would aid a coup in Bolivia (the general). He used his funding to pay off the police and other high up figures to allow the coup to run successfull. He then paid the general to sell him a sizeable piece of the country whom the general beleived was worthless because it contained no oil. Unknown to the general, it contained 60 percent of the water supply of the country. Clearly the US wouldn't allow some new dictator to simply Greene had to bribe the US government. He tells the US that the land he is purchasing contains oil...and he agrees to give the oil to the US. However...the land clearly contains no oil...but the US is too stupid and noncaring to even research the situation. (Also it was hinted that Felix's associate was being paid off). So Green's men created sinkholes with dynamite to obtain water, and to also destroy other sources of water and create draughts. The objective was to contain majority of the water...and then double the cost of water. When the general found out about the double water cost at the end he was pretty upset...but there was nothing he could do. There you have it. I just saw the film 2 hours ago. Plot seemed simple. Must be a lot of dumb Bond fans pretending they appreciated the art of Casino Royalle.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 1:54 a.m. CST

    You are all dumb...

    by CMBat

    I saw this movie today. The action scenes were cut too quick, but the movie was solid and just as good as CR. Stop being a bunch of haters. It's Bond in the way that it needed to be Bond, and it was a reboot in the way that it needed to be a reboot. I give it a 9, and anyone that gives it less is a whiner in advance.

  • And they were only hard to follow because they were shot and edited badly.<p> <p>Sacrificing clarity for the sake of artificially injecting FRENETIC PACE by cutting every other second to a "dynamic" (usually shaky) P.O.V. shot instead of properly framing and editing the action and using the action NOT the editing to drive the pace.<p> <p>Not FASTCUT relying FASTCUT on FASTCUT speed FASTCUT of FASTCUT image FASTCUT transition FASTCUT to FASTCUT imitate FASTCUT pace FASTCUT and FASTCUT "excitement".<p> <p>I quite liked the plot. Not ludicrously convoluted for the sake of it like so much other "spy" stuff, yet still interesting enough to be worth uncovering while managing to keep itself at least reasonably familiar with reality.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:21 a.m. CST

    Homosexual Bond

    by Prossor

    the lingering shot of him in ballhuggers coming out of the sea with shaved chest, i mean no question he would kick your ass i'm only worried what he'll do to it afterward!

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:41 a.m. CST

    this movie simply isn't very good, sorry.

    by darwinmayflower

    very disappointed that all the aicn reviews were positive. show some balls, and call out shitty gratuitous american explosions and crappy editing as poor filmaking. water? really water? you accept that as a legit plotpoint? weak story and camerawork=shit movie. (however, yes: daniel craig is excellent) and this IS shitty in the same way that the Borne movies suck, deal with it.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:46 a.m. CST

    could have been much more...

    by Out of your element

    If it were'nt for shitty directing and sloppy editing choices, this might have been a much more enjoyable bond flick. However, there seemed to be several pointless, ridiculously short cuts that are clearly meant for an add audience. Whatever happened to cuts that lasted longer that 3 milliseconds? The action was quite good, though, and Daniel Craig and Judi Dench basically carried the film. I would have liked to see alot more character behind the girl (notice I cant remember her name). I just hope the next installment just tries to be a bond film instead of a bourne film.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:46 a.m. CST

    by Out of your element


  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Remember Jack Cassidy's demise in EIGER SANCTION?

    by Charles Grady

    Isn't one of this film's big moments a 100% steal from Clint taking Cassidy out to the desert in EIGER SANCTION? By the way, when you combined the two MASTERS OF BULLSHIT that are Haggis and Forster... you get QUANTUM OF BABEL, what with those preachy shots of the Bolivian locals conveniently suffering from thirst right on cue.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 3:02 a.m. CST

    No love for SPECTRE?

    by westwood13

    I can't believe this Talkback has made it this far without mention of the possibility of bringing SPECTRE back into the series as a modern terror organization. The opera meeting scene was straight out of THUNDERBALL, just without the cat and the electrocution chairs. I hope whatever the next episode is, we get to meet the man with the white cat again...

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 3:26 a.m. CST


    by westwood13

    Oops. So I guess QUANTUM was supposed to be the actual name of this secret organization? I thought it was just some tease for the next movie, but is it instead supposed to be the word they use because they can't say SPECTRE? I remember the old Victory Games RPG decided to call it TAROT instead. Is this still because of the whole THUNDERBALL debacle? That would suck. Regardless, I sure hope they don't try to come up with an acronym for it. SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion was pretty awkward to start with...

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 3:34 a.m. CST

    It was a piece of fucking SHIT

    by BauerJackBauer

    Enjoyed the Star Trek trailer though.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 3:40 a.m. CST

    Do you guys really think that was Jaws?

    by BillEmic

    I agree, the action scenes were too cut up, but the dramatic bits were able to carry the film for me. I just wish there had been more of them - the dramatic bits, that is. I was REALLY disappointed that we didn't get to actually SEE any of Bond's conversation about Quantum with Greene at the end, or his all-important dialogue with Vesper's boyfriend. There was some genuinely good dialogue in this film, it's a shame everything was kept so terse and quickly paced.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 3:46 a.m. CST

    Ebert has a point

    by TengoLow

    Bond is a spy, not an action hero. The most ridiculous part of the script is all that running and jumping. The real British Secret Service is going to have to tell new recruits, "Sorry, darlings. Parkour is not part of spy training." Other than that, the plot made sense. A lot of things carried on from CASINO ROYALE. How many people remember that Bond made a deal with Felix Leiter to get more money to stay in the poker game to beat le Chiffre, in return for the CIA getting le Chiffre to interrogate. As M pointed out here, le Chiffre ended up dead and useless to the CIA, and that might have prompted Leiter's demotion in the weeks or months after CASINO and got him a bad posting to the station in Bolivia under a chief he can't stand. Just as Bond has to apologise to Mathis for accusing him of being the traitor in CASINO, he also has to make things right with Leiter. Bond's quest is ultimately to find Vesper's fiancé, not to save the world. That's the plot all along, but it's not revealed until the final scene. Dominic Greene is the strongest lead he has, which is why he pushes so hard for Greene. All his kills are self-defence and he can't be bothered to explain himself. He's not out to kill Greene, he wants to interrogate him about both Quantum and Vesper's fiancé. He does want revenge, but he folds it into his duty: Vesper's fiancé is a honeytrap and would be valuable catch because he can reveal how deep Quantum is in all the intelligence services in the world and between the intel Bond got from Greene and him, they'll be able to draw a map of Quantum's reaches and plans. Those answers are the solace Bond has been seeking. He needs to know that Vesper was a victim and not an intentional traitor. That's the arc that I thought was laid out pretty clearly by the script and Craig's performance. It makes sense that Bond and Camille don't sleep with each other. They're both too driven by their missions. Bond can respect her drive for revenge and partners up with her to help her achieve it. She's Bond's mirror image here: like him, she's using Greene to get to her real target as well. There's no sexual tension between them, only a meeting of equals driven by tragedy and grief. She finds her solace in revenge as well, but neither of them can give the other solace. The big problem has been Foster's direction: he's clearly out of his depth here and relied on multiple cameras and the editors. There's no single shot in the whole movie that lasts more than a few seconds. There are no long establishing mastershots for us to take in everything before they cut to another shot. The shots, while often pretty, are very tight and claustrophobic. There's no room to breathe in this movie, unlike the classic set-ups and camera moves that Martin Campbell set up in CASINO. Here, all those tight shots and edits feel more like TV than a movie. I suspect there would be less complains about not being able to follow the plot if someone classical like Campbell had directed QUANTUM.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 4:50 a.m. CST

    The writers obviously don't know...

    by TengoLow

    ...the extent of Quantum's reach here. It's about setting up a premise for future plotlines. They'll work that out in the next movies as and when they have to write them. They only worked out the plot of QUANTUM OF SOLACE when it was time to write it.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 4:54 a.m. CST

    That Star Trek trailer looks ****ing awesome!!

    by cameron1975willi

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 5:04 a.m. CST

    better than Casino - no doubt

    by Mr Gorilla

    I've seen every Bond multiple times (who here hasn't?), and I every film since and including THE SPY WHO LOVED ME in the cinema, in the opening week. At the moment, my feeling is that while Casino did some good 'reboot' work, it was no more effective a reboot than, say FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. Reboot, in the Bond film world, usually means 'less jokes, less gadgets, less baddie headquarters,less effects, more fights, more real stunts'. I felt that CASINO suffered most in the final reel. That Venice sequence simply wasn't exciting. Watching a girl slowly drown is whose idea of a good time? (Tracy's death in OHMSS was much better done.) On to QUANTUM. I think it reinvigorated loads of Bond elements really well. The Opera scene was great. The end of the Siena chase was great. And the hotel fire hell was SO much more exciting than the Venice water hell. I most of all loved that the feel of locations was so good. (Look back at Casino, it just feels like a slightly lame touist brochure in comparison.) I particularly like how they are p;aying QUANTUM in a very similar way that they played SPECTRE in the first films of the sequence. For the first time in ages, this film felt truly contemporary. It felt, amazingly, fresher than Bond. It put forward the theory that there's a secret club running the world, but did it in a believable fashion. I can't wait for the next one.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 5:22 a.m. CST

    Makes me reassess my personal review of the film a bit :

    by PTSDPete

    Yeah, thanks for reminding me of all that stuff, Harry. And I must admit, for all its shortcomings, you feel in your gut that it isn't exactly a bad film, or even a passable one. It really is quite good film, and your instincts simply prevent you from telling otherwise. It is, after all, quite a breather to finally see high-end, 21st century Blockbuster movie again after suffering through recent interminable post-Dark Knight dreck ( X-files, Mummy 3 ), with more reasonable and aware politics that you know is right; not something whose audacious, jingoistic stupidity you're made suffer through because of some undeclared ' Fairness doctrine '. That includes ' Iron Man ' and to quite an extent, ' The Dark Knight ', who, while quite well-made in their own right, is either vapid or fascistically backward not only in their viewpoints ( no offense ) so much as how they carry them. That, you know, you had to buy into that shit BECAUSE IT'S IRON MAN, and BECAUSE IT'S THE GODDAMN BATMAN ! HOO HAH ! That didactic ' us versus them ' thing in those things, their blatant pro-Republican/War on Iraq Terror Muslim tenor they put in perhaps still assuming a permanent Repug majority and a repeat of Reagan late '80s, and the capitulation to these views they goad the viewers toward through deceptive escapism. Making us accept their retarded Manichean viewpoint that was already thrown away post-Iraq War when ( we thought ) we got our minds together finally again through false rouge ' dissenting ' appeal or something . Finally get cinema back here that feels more like of this time, and FROM this time, and speaks for this time and its sensibilities more resonately to break this late '80s nostalgic impasse I figure we've been on of late - yet MORE restrained, MORE kempt, MORE inhibited, MORE safe. And movies from ' Iron Man ' to ' The Dark Knight ' feel a tad wee bit too safe, especially on the action end. Quantum of Solace is gratifying simply for the fact that the bone-crushing, face-stabbing, and out-and-out brutality is in back in all abandon THAT UNABASHEDLY THROWS PG-13 PRECONCEPTIONS OUT THE FUCKING WINDOW, and critical, non-infantile view to complement it again. Just like the way we thought action is suppose to be at, nowadays. It's great to get that shit back to the cinemas again. Yet all this still doesn't aid the fact this movie feels more like an addendum of the first film, instead of an entire installment all its own. But you still get the feeling things are gonna be escalating into something else fierce, and it perks you to try and speculate and add into what that might be. And that they're indeed doing the ONLY ACCEPTABLE James Bond approach in recent memory. This one solely assures us, for all intents and purposes, that the radical, and righteous changes with the first was NOT a fluke, and we are all the better for that.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Which is not to say....

    by PTSDPete

    That the Dark Knight isn't a great film. It's the Ferrari engine of storytelling indeed. You couldn't beat that. That may perhaps be the best film this year, or something. It cannot be denied; some of it's forced politics aside , though I guess that's a caveat any sort of creation is entitled to. But ' Quantum of Solace ' is a welcome return back into the great headspace we were in when ' Casino Royale ' happened, which is of this post-Iraq War 21st century. And that is cool normalcy.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 5:31 a.m. CST

    Double Negatives

    by PTSDPete

    My bad.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Eon made a a huge mistake...

    by emeraldboy

    By for some reason rushing this film into cinemas. I think the rason that some people like this film is that bond beats people. some talkbackers like masochistic movies. hence the raves that Hostel got and the lynching that fox got for making Die Hard 4 a pg 13 film and that is why Rambo 4 got such a love. if they ever make a bond film where he attacks an opponent with a machette and rips out someones throat. Harry will praise it to the hilt. That along with attempted rape is not something I want to see in a bond movie. thanks. a darker, grittier bond. no problem. I dont want bond movies to be ultra violent. That is why there is a divide. amongst viewers in the UK and america. some talkbackers want a more exterme bond. All I want is a better bond story and better villains. I didnt get that from QOS.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 7:17 a.m. CST

    I liked it

    by The Amazing G

    I don't think it's as good as Casino Royale however, but it's still solid, can't wait for Bond 23

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 7:36 a.m. CST

    open letter to Martin Campbell: COME BACK!!

    by Maniaq

    Thank you TengoLow for actually paying attention. Couple of things I wanted to throw at you - Bond mentioned (I think to Camille?) that they tried to kill his (boss) friend - M - I thought that was kinda important, wouldn't you agree? <p> Also, I was under the impression Vesper and her boyfriend were a little lower on the totem pole to Le Chiffre, who in turn was lower than the likes of White and Greene (hmm... is there a Browne and will there be a Pink?) and although the Austrian sequence suggests they're it, I suspect there is at least one more level up, possibly a Blofeld-style puppetmaster. <p> Point being, I don't think he was pursuing Greene to get to (what was the boyfriend's name?) - I don't think he would know as much as Greene knew - he's essentially street level, whereas Greene is executive... <p> <p> You know, I remember back when they announced the director for this film, everyone had such high hopes they were going to steer the franchise AWAY from ridiculous action set pieces. Really, if this was what they wanted, why go with FORSTER to make that happen? I mean... at least get someone who's comfortable with action to take your SECOND UNIT - WTF were these people thinking??

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Craig said he wants 007 to be gay

    by kafka07

    I don't know how old this news is, or if anyone has posted it yet, but Daniel Craig said he is trying to convince the people in charge of the franchise to write in a gay scene for Bond in the next movie. And for the scene to involve Craig doing a full frontal. I am being serious. I really am. Thoughts?

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 7:55 a.m. CST

    No Harry...this time Mark Kermode has it right

    by matley

    I'm afraid I cannot remotely agree with Harry's (and everyone else on AICN) that Quantum of Solace is something special. Rather than waste my finger movements with this film, take a look at Mark Kermode's on

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Daniel Craig

    by Sparhawk38

    Is the Bond we need. A Bond we can believe in. I vote Daniel Craig for Bond.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:04 a.m. CST

    The problems were basic

    by BeatsMe

    Like so many have said: Editing was some of the worst I've ever seen--that opening car chase was completely inscrutable and the most disappointing pre-title sequence of the series. -The story just wasn't very involving. I actually don't want my Bond to be all action all the time--that's why Casino Royale was among the series' best. It was a political thriller that used violence/action sparingly to engage you in the characters situation. -Least menacing villain in the series. Worse than Christopher Lee with his third nipple.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:08 a.m. CST

    "This is nothing like a Bourne film" - Wake up, idiot

    by Steve Rogers

    It's TOTALLY like a Bourne film! If you can't see the heavy hand of Bourne (or, more precisely Dan Bradley) in the opening car chase, rooftop chase, or the fight in the apartment, then you are being willfully ignorant.<p> For my money QoS is a good flick that never becomes great. I'm pleased they ditched the dumb gadgetry but Bond is now robotically inhuman; Craig was great in the role last time because he had a proper character arc. In this one he's just pissed off all the time (though very good at being so). Royale WAS a better film. End of.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:36 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Bourne is God!!!

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:46 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Color me aroused!!!!!

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Casino royale was great because...

    by emeraldboy

    Bond was quiet in that. He was a moody rough diamond. I loved the black and white opening. I loved that bone crunching scene where bond makes his first kill. I notice in these reactions to quantum of solace that no one has mentioned how they lifted the knife scene from bourne. The bond makers will have to very careful where they take bond. if they make him a rogue spy, that will take him down to the road of baure or if they put a team around him that will take into the realm of spooks. or put him in army gear and that will be the unit them there is NCIS territory. EOn has to be careful. The bond cannon is running out fast. and I cant see how without them they can create original bond movie. filling bond films with bland eco villains is not the answer.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 9:18 a.m. CST


    by Freds_Balls_in_a_Mason_Jar

    Fred really liked your review of the movie. It is exactly what Fred felt, and would have said, if Fred was smart enough to say it. For all it's flaws, Fred enjoyed the movie, but was astounded by how short it was. Totally agrees that Foster was the wrong choice for director. But Craig, through the power of his performance, overcomes the directors liabilities. it s not as good as CR. But the plot is a good Bond plot that is not difficult to follow. Fred just wish they would have made it longer and had more establishing shots and dialogue and less *gulp* action.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 9:58 a.m. CST

    I like it despite the action sequences, not because of them...

    by Pdorwick

    When are young directors going to realise that the Michael Bay, Paul Greengrass ADD style of shooting/editing make for HORRIBLE action sequences. Thankfully with this Bond the story, non-action character scenes and Daniel Craig more than make up for the nearly unwatchable action sequences.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 10:03 a.m. CST

    ...oh, and my theatre didn't show the Star Trek trailer.

    by Pdorwick

    ...does anyone have an explanation for this?

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 10:27 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    You know my name!!!!

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 10:53 a.m. CST

    I want to see a spy movie

    by TerryMalloy

    Where the spies are twenty something yuppie dudes fresh out of Yale who have no idea what the fuck they're doing, don't speak the language of the country in which they are stationed, who support violent brutal totalitarian dictators with suitcases of cash, give piss poor intelligence that leads to misinformed policy decisions, who lead a covert action that gets everyone involved killed or executed by the opposition, who can't fight at all and can only lie semi-effectively, who through their complete and utter incompetence allow terrorists to attack us on our own soil and who are ultimately iced by a mole in the highest region of the government. <p> It would be a little closer to reality. <p> Ok so maybe that's a bad idea.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 11:05 a.m. CST


    by TerryMalloy

    While QoS wins the award for 'Worst Edited Cold Open to a Bond Film', didn't one of the Brosnan ones feature him surfing on a tsunami in the opening? I think that was the worst one for its sheer stupidity.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 11:06 a.m. CST

    QOS reviews

    by jonnypatience

    harry sets the standard for online reviews. but there's a hilarious review on this site i found the other day.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 11:46 a.m. CST

    star trek

    by Out of your element

    the fucking trek trailer was so much better than the movie, by the way. Bring it on!

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Hoping the next film has more spying, less dying

    by Bot-Bot

    Now that Bond got his solace, the one big thing missing in Craig's Bond is the sneaking around and espionage stuff that elevated the tension in all the old Bond films. Yeah, it's fun to see him beat the shit out of baddies, but it's a lot more tense if he's got some jeopardy. I'm hoping the next one raises the stakes a little.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST


    by PirateEmery

    Sneaking around and espionage stuff? Did you leave the theater to go to the restroom during the Opera scene?

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:25 p.m. CST

    The Trek trailer is shocking

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Looks pathetic.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 12:44 p.m. CST


    by picardsucks

    Was pretty good but after watching Thunderball blu-ray on a 65" screen. Dunno seems like this Bond has no panache. Hopefully Haggis is out on the next one and they build in some Conneresque charm. Not comparing him with Connery, diff era, diff actor, diff political times, but I think Connery brought both a brutality as well as humor and also when needed brutality to Bond. Craig certainly has the brutality and we have seen flashes of the humor now i'd like to see a little more suave. And more chicks, and maybe a cool gadget or two. Toned down and grounded is fine but a touch of sophistication would serve him well to keep this going. And please no more Paul Haggis. Hispoor little trampled Third world downtrodden in need of less democracy and more Marxism, we Westerners are all evil tirades are played out and becoming redundant. New writer, a little more Vanity Fair, and we have sweet franchise for years to come.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 1:18 p.m. CST


    by hollywoodsummers

    and ever beat right after an action scene where you expect the audience to burst out in applause and glee.... nothing... crickets. You could here a fucking pin drop because everyone was thinking, "what the fuck just happened? I guess Bond won the fight, but I couldn't tell what was going on or who was who... and I'm not sure if I care." Gotta say, the action in the film was horribly shot and cut.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 1:18 p.m. CST


    by hollywoodsummers

    and ever beat right after an action scene where you expect the audience to burst out in applause and glee.... nothing... crickets. You could here a fucking pin drop because everyone was thinking, "what the fuck just happened? I guess Bond won the fight, but I couldn't tell what was going on or who was who... and I'm not sure if I care." Gotta say, the action in the film was horribly shot and cut.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Maniaq and Fred...

    by TengoLow

    Maniaq, you raise good points. Bond's whole mission is tied together. That Quantum can get a man close enough to shoot at M is something that needs to be assessed, and Greene just happens to be the biggest target Bond finds. He's one of the leaders with the big picture in his head. Vesper's fiancé may be just an asset, but he's been working to trap agents around the world, so he would know the day-to-day operations of the organisation's footsoldiers, including who gives them orders, the middle management types and the methods they use. The gives M and the Brits a lot of leverage with the likes of the CIA when they end up the only ones who have penetrated Quantum's street-level workings. His pursuit of Vesper's boyfriend did have a personal layer. Notice when he confronts him, Bond shows rage for the only time in the whole movie? That's what he's been saving up all along. You believe he wanted to kill him more than anyone else in the story. And the theme of solace or the pursuit of solace, just a quantum of solace is woven throughout the script. Mathis is himself seeking solace for getting accused of treason and being drummed out of the spy game. That's why he agrees to go with Bond. Bond shows real sorrow for the first time in any movie when he realises his carelessness got a friend killed. Mathis tries to offer him solace by saying, "We forgive each other." but there's no solace for Bond when he knows he's responsible for this death. His throwing the body in a dumpster with a curt "he wouldn't have cared" is the tragic dimension of what all spies understand. These moments are there in the script, as is Greene's later taunt "You lost another one." The problem is Foster directed and edited with no sense of pacing, so there's no real sense of pause for the emotions of those moments to really sink in for the audience. Even the sequence of the shootout and murder in the opera house set to the bloody climax of Tosca should have been elegant and poetic, but Foster was completely unable to give that sequence justice. He didn't even know how to film the discover of Ms. Fields' body covered in oil to give it any real weight beyond an afterthought.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 1:50 p.m. CST

    rapid fire editing sucked [slight spoilers]

    by chromedome

    in the cold open, as the car chase approached a backed up border crossing (?) with no where to go, suddenly there appeared a completely unblocked road--but if you blinked, it seemed like they just magically appeared on a new road....<p>in the first foot chase, thru underground tunnels, initially I couldn't tell who was chasing who--the context/set-up was so poor<p>the final desert hotel scene was so completely contrived, with no sense of place at all--where was Camille in relation to Bond: same floor, above, below, to the left, to the right? When the explosions started, the general didn't even seem to react. And the whole hotel itself was so obviously facade that it was distracting as hell.<p>I like Craig as Bond, and since these newest flicks are telling his early story, I am okay that he is not polished and smooth.<p>But the action sequences were so terribly edited that it made Transformers scenes look slow-mo.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Harry, how long ago did you read the Fleming books?

    by NoDiggity

    Because the Bond of the books is softy, who loves and respects women. Sean Connery's Bond was a misogynistic thug by comparison, but Craig Daniel's Bond makes Connery's Bond look like a softy. Craig Daniel's Bond looks like the sort of thug that Fleming's and Connery's Bond's would end up squaring off against, Bond's wiles and quickness beating the sheer brutality of the bad guy. So when you say "This is Fleming's Bond, the Bond I've been waiting for all my life" it makes me think you are fibbing a bit. Either you never read the books at all, or you have totally forgotten them.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Payoff's not even written! [spoilers]

    by chromedome

    Since Bond's mission is to get information about Quantum (and he is repeatedly chided for killing potential sources of information) one expects to actually get some information about Quantum. <p>The Opera House scene was good, and played into that goal.<p>But, he finally interrogates the guy in the desert: we learn of this only because the guy gets tossed in the sand and says "I told you what you want to know"--but we are never told any of it. Clearly, the writers have no idea where they are going to go with Quantum.<p>Bond's personal mission was to get the guy who killed Vespa--when that moment comes, whatever he does with it is off camera!!<p>Some sloppy shit, that.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2 p.m. CST

    Worth Seeing--important middle chapter in the new saga

    by chromedome

    as the arc of Craig's Bond is developed, but not a blockbuster, not the WOW film I'd hoped for. Presumably, with feedback from this one, they can do a mid-course correction and tune the next one....

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Could have EASILY been much better


  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Here's a TRUE Review

    by ScottinDC

    I was a huge fan of Casino Royale...despite being overly long (with an extra ending or two that needed trimming), I found Daniel Craig to be an excellent Bond and enjoyed the more humanistic and ferocious approach to the character. With that said, I won't den enjoying Quantum of Solace; but it falls FAR short of Casino Royale. There are several action sequences that are poorly edited...and it stretches the bounds of believability way too far - something that Casino Royale did sparingly (this is not sparing in any way). There are some excellent set pieces, no doubt, but the main plot is a tad dull. It just is. The people that are saying this film is merely "pretty good" are 100% correct. Daniel Craig is excellent yet again; but the film itself is poorly edited and paced...and does not deliver a satisfying payoff during the final sequence. This is an enjoyable but forgettable Bond film - better than any Brosnan or Dalton outing...but a steep drop from the simmering angsty quality of Casino Royale. 2 1/2 out of 4.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:08 p.m. CST

    For anyone in ireland who has seen this film can..

    by emeraldboy

    anyone explain the following. The movie was rated 12a and yet underneath that it said. suitable only for 18 years and over. bizarre. andmy criticism of this film still stands. my regular cinema going pal point out the glaring irregularity of the scene between bond and greene near the end of the movie. Harry loves masochistically violent movies. this is the harry knowles who let is little nephew watch the texas chainsaw massacre. the tope hoper film.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:11 p.m. CST

    I like the Title of the film

    by chromedome

    not sure why so many reviewers are dissing that

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Could have EASILY been much better


    Why the hell didn't Campbell direct it? Are they gonna wait another ten years to get him back? At least this guy knows how to stage and shoot action so that you can clearly see WTF is going on and be amazed at the huge action set-pieces, fight choreography and stunts. A stuntman died while making CR. What if sth like that happened here? the person's death would become meaningless "thanks" to the terrible editing and camerawork. The man would have died in vain. It's an insult to all these people who work very very hard, some putting their life on the line, to fuck your eyeballs out. Staging huge action sequences and then shooting them like this is just disrespectful to these people, not to mention stupid. Why the hell did they spend 200 million on this movie? I could shoot it myself for five bucks with a crappy cell-phone, shake it around all the time, you wouldn't see the difference. Marc Forster was suggested by Craig himself. Craig is fantastic in the role, sure, but the things he says are just stupid. Make Bond gay, make him black etc. Somebody please tell him to keep his mouth shut next time. I love CR, and wanted to love this, but can't.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:43 p.m. CST

    They need to dump paul haggis...

    by emeraldboy

    and hire a real veteran screenwriter. My friend also hates m asa woman. may be they should hire tom stoppard.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Craig has said in every interview about future bonds...

    by emeraldboy

    He has shot two and he has signed for two more.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:49 p.m. CST

    hollywood summers

    by PirateEmery

    Sorry to hear that... the theater I was in last night did the whole applauding/laughing thing at all the right parts. Well, I'm not actually sure you were supposed to laugh after the death of Slate, but whatever.<p> Did they at least break into raucous laughter during the teachers on sabbatical jokes?

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 2:52 p.m. CST

    so that means craig....

    by emeraldboy

    has 3 bond movies left. I think he said that third will be the last of the trilogy and that the 4th bond movie will be a brand new bond story. wheels will come off the bond franchise if they do that.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 3:07 p.m. CST

    I agree, I can't believe this was more expensive than CR

    by BillEmic

    Considering how long and how jam-packed with epic stunts and explosions and special effects that Casino Royale was, I was absolutely shocked that this film actually cost much MORE to make when it looked like it had much less to it. Why spend $220 million (no joke, that's how much this cost) on stunts the audience can't even see/comprehend? Martin Campbell is undoubtedly one of the best action directors working on Hollywood and his presence on this film is sorely missed.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 4:38 p.m. CST

    you complainers are fucking idiots

    by antonphd

    this is a 007 film. fantasy spy action movie. if you want something serious and real then watch the fucking news.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST


    by TengoLow

    The Bond of the novels is not a softy. He's deeply messed up, and his feelings about women are also deeply messed up. They're pretty much Fleming's, really, but blown up. Sure, he's heterosexual and he likes women and especially sex with women, but he views them with deep distrust. He's constantly keeping an out out for the moment they might stab him in his back. "If the girl was lying, she was a damned good actress." was a recurring sentence in Fleming's novels. He liked rough sex with them, bordering on rape, yet he feels the need to save and protect them at the same time. One aspect of Bond that's not in the movies is FEAR. Fleming's Bond carries an edge of fear and paranoia that one day he's going to run out of luck, or run into someone faster and smarter than him and he'll finally bite it. That's what keeps him alive in the stories. it's why he binges on luxury food, the high life and women.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Eon offered Campbell a huge amount of money...

    by emeraldboy

    and he said no.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 5:01 p.m. CST


    by Happyfat73

    You made it nearly two thirds of the way through your review without a single ellipsis. Of course, you re-lapsed at the end, but it was a good effort. Well done.</p> I'm looking forward to QoS. I have a question though - will my wife be able to follow QoS without seeing Casino Royale?

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Bond is a fantasy spy character, sure...

    by emeraldboy

    but there is no excuse for the sloppy writing, the lack of tension and the awful editing. I cant explain how sloppy the last scene between bond and greene is. something happend between those two and yet the audience is left in the dark. greene says I answered all your questions and told you everything I know about the organisation. We never see that happened. I hope it will be on the DVD.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 5:08 p.m. CST

    I hope that the Eon kept...

    by emeraldboy

    that scene we dont see between bond and greene and edit it into the third movie.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Wow, what an awful movie this was.

    by Photoman

    Right from the opening "chase scene"...if that's what it was. It was pretty hard to tell. I agree with Ebert when he said: "is so quickly cut and so obviously composed of incomprehensible CGI that we're essentially looking at bright colors bouncing off each other". Seriously, this movie was just bad.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Jeffrey Wright...

    by REDD

    Once again, is given little to do.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Dear Marc Forster,

    by ballyhoo

    Never attempt to direct an action sequence again. You can't do it. You don't understand what good action is. If you ever want to know, watch Casino Royale.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 6:34 p.m. CST

    about the editing

    by Maniaq

    you know Forster is supposed to be all about getting the emotions out of a scene and the more I think about it, the more I believe he was LOCKED OUT of the editing process. You can see stuff (like the village scenes in the opening sequence) intercut with the action that was obviously meant to provide some of this emotional context - but it's all cut so quickly the impact of that stuff is reduced and effectively just ends up getting in the way. That opening sequence in particular stuck out for me because you're trying to figure out who shot who and where's M and where's White and instead you're looking at some bloody bullfight.. <p> I don't think these mistakes were made by the DIRECTOR during SHOOTING - I'm more and more convinced these were EDITING decisions that destroyed the pacing of the film and I sincerely HOPE a Director's Cut will emerge where Forster is allowed to do what he was TRYING to do with the footage. <p> I'm reminded of George Lucas. <p> On Star Wars, he went for rapid fire pacing and that worked. <p> HOWEVER...<p> Enter Irvin Kershner on the sequel - who (with the help of producer Gary Kurtz) SHOOTS the film at a slower pace - in a way that highlights the emotional aspects of the story. Lucas is pissed and he fights for the rapid pacing of the first (and EVERY subsequent) film - but it's two against one with Director and Producer both in agreement. <p> OK - here's my point- <p> Lucas takes Kershner's footage and CUTS IT HIMSELF in that fast paced manner that worked so well with his own footage - AND IT SUCKS! He finally concedes that his way is NOT going to work - not with the way this film was SHOT - and agrees to let them cut the film THEIR way, with all the pauses and the emotions intact. <p> The film goes from something that would probably have been regarded as the WORST of all the SW films (maybe even killed the franchise) to one that is regarded by many as the best... <p> All I'm saying is let Forster cut the film the way it is SUPPOSED to be cut, release a Director's Cut - and see what happens. Someone said they rushed this one out. Maybe they did. There's certainly a precedent I can think of where a film received a resounding "meh" from audiences, until a Director's Cut was released...

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Bourne editing taken to...

    by snakecharmer

    ...a painful level. ACTION 101: The audience must be able to follow who is doing who to who. Nothing pulls the audience out of movie than not knowing what just happened. Someone in my theater wondered out loud exactly that. C+

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 7:11 p.m. CST

    I've no idea

    by kwisatzhaderach

    what is happening in the opening car chase. AICN's backing of this film is puzzling. It's a huge disappointment.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 7:13 p.m. CST


    by Maniaq

    I think you're right about the boyfriend being the (possibly only) target Bond had any emotional investment in - and the only time he allows those emotions to surface. <p> He doesn't even bother mentioning he's not actually the one that killed some of the others (the Special Branch guy from Austria and of course Mathis among them) - and yes his reaction to Mathis' death is spot on with the character from Fleming's books - it goes with the territory and you can only allow yourself one tiny moment (quantum?) to grieve. Does Mathis try to tell him something about that when they talk? I can't quite remember. <p> Ironically the one he's MOST interested in seeing dead is the one he makes sure lives - although he's clearly not done with Mr White just yet...

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Craig's Bond vs. Connery's Bond

    by NoHubris

    Connery's Bond was great with witty one liners. The only witty one liner the script offered Craig was delivered with tremendous skill. The theater is was in erupted in laughter.<p>It is a huge failure that he was not given more of them to say.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:35 p.m. CST

    A different take on the Bourne stuff

    by Manatee

    People keep harping about how derivative Bond has become. I disagree. I believe the popularity and style of the Bourne films reminded the producers of what Bond used to be. It enabled the producers to return Bond to the real world, minus the goofiness and the gadgets. Folks need to remember Bond was brawling, chasing, and killing nearly 20 years before Ludlum created Bourne, and 40 years before Damon's version hit the screen.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Tut Tut Harry

    by Mr Kite

    You have often been accused of selling out after giving glowing reviews to terrible films on this site. Some of the directors of those films are friends of yours which is even more suspicious. Now you have really left yourself wide open to suspicion. Not once did you mention the terrible, inconprehensible filming of the action scenes during the review. Why not Harry? What is happening with this website? Have a word with VERN. Ask him about his review. Look at all the talkbackers on this site who have the same critisms of this film. The story/plot/character development/faithfullness to the Ian Fleming books means nothing if the viewer can't understand what the hell is happening because the film has been so badly made. Sorry Harry and friends (except VERN) I have lost all faith in you. My opinion is you sold out and you sold out a while ago. With reviews like yours bad movies will continue to be made.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Bond is awesome because...

    by jmac4ever

    ...I don't think that anyone has the "perfect" version. Different people have different things they like about each version. I personally like this version the best because it's just as much about the character as the plot. It helps that this Bond has an actual continuity. But that's not for everyone. Batman's a great character for the same reason. Everyone has a different idea about him. Right now, I think that both franchises are heading in a more realistic direction because, with the actual world in the shape it's in, people are happy to see their heroes showing up to save the day on actual streets they would recognize. When we all feel a little safer, Bond and Batman will probably start fighting space aliens, but the space alien generation will stil say that their version is the best even if Bond is bald by then.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 8:52 p.m. CST


    by TengoLow

    I think Mathis does try to tell him something, but the most important is "We forgive each other", which is Mathis' attempt to offer him solace and tell him not to feel guilty for his death. It's an understanding of the tragic lives they live as spies out in the cold. Craig's look as he holds him is priceless, because he knows his own tragedy of seeing friends and aliies die will never end. And Bond's having sex with Ms. Fields is also another pause to seize a quantum of solace. The cocktail Bond drinks on the plane is in fact known as a Vesper, another attempt to seek solace. I also note that when Bond confronts Vesper's boyfriend, he spends some time alone with the guy before he lets the MI6 agents in to take custody. That more than implies he did a lot of things to the guy short of killing him.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 9:22 p.m. CST


    by chromedome

    Yup, Connery and Craig are the two best Bonds by far.<p>And wasn't there supposed to be another BSG movie/dvd event this fall, before the season starts in Jan? When When When? Need my Sharon fix, and more Hybrid Theory Validation.... Cheers

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 10:18 p.m. CST

    that Vesper drink

    by Maniaq

    ahh - not quite - the bartender had substituted something for vermouth, thus turning it into something he didn't quite recognise - but yes, a brief pause for a quantum of solace, most definitely. <p> I remember now - he was saying Bond is still young enough to be able to distinguish between right and wrong but as you get older the distinction between the heroes and the villains tends to get more muddled - odd because having recently accused him of playing both sides, Bond has come to Mathis as the only one he can trust...

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Mathis's wisdom

    by TengoLow

    It's a reversal: Bond saw everything in black and white terms in CASINO. Here he's starting to get a glimpse of the grey areas: he's being accused of being a bad guy gone off the leash, his and the US government are getting in bed with someone like Greene, a member of Quantum is an advisor to the UK Prime Minister, and ironically, Mathis is the one old and jaded enough to understand the progression to those grey areas.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 10:53 p.m. CST


    by BeatsMe

    Yeah, there have been stupider openings. But they beat this one just on the fact that I could say, "Wow, that was incredibly stupid." The more I think about QoS, the less I remember. Really a bland piece of moviemaking.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Harry and Mori are right on

    by wash

    The haters are just being smug assholes.

  • Nov. 15, 2008, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Total let down!!!

    by slave to the one

    I have to say I totally disagree with Harry on this one! It just didn't feel like a Bond movie to me, but Craigs's performance was still top notch. I never felt a sense of urgency or danger that the Quantum organization obviously entails. This film just felt like a book end to give closure to Casino Royale rather than a stand alone story. I'm hoping that Bond 23 improves on the writing and direction!

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 12:05 a.m. CST

    My 2 cents... *** 1/2 out of ****

    by TylerDurden3395

    here’s the real review for Bond fans. <p> The pre-title action sequence: Awesome car chase with a brilliant freeze frame moment. It loses a half a star for the simple fact that it looked like it was edited with a wood chipper. *** ½. <p> The opening title sequence: Top notch. It continues the retro feel that was started with Casino Royale. It also features excellent use of naked women writhing around in sand. ****. <p> Theme song: Another Way to Die (performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys) is probably the best Bond tune in a long old time. I liked the way White incorporated the rock guitar with the orchestral stuff. It’s the first duet in Bond history and it worked well enough for me. *** ½. <p> Bond himself: I like all the Bonds equally. Each Bond movie is tailor made around the actor playing Bond. Roger Moore was a womanizer who would rather pork a chick than save the world. Daniel Craig is more in the Timothy Dalton vein of 007. He’s a guy who uses his fists and wits to get the job done. Craig handles the humor a bit better than Dalton did and while his quips are kept to a minimum (“He was a dead end!”); when he delivers them, it brings down the house. ****. <p> Gadgets: Sparse, but believable as Bond uses his cell phone to get GPS movements on the scumbags who call him. ***. <p> Bond Girls: Olga is hot. Really hot. She’s the best Bond girl since Famke Janssen crushed Pierce Brosnan with her thighs in Goldeneye, even though she doesn’t slip between the sheets with 007. At least Gemma Arterton, that ginger-headed waif falls for Bond’s bedroom antics. ****. <p> Action: A veritable smorgasbord of action and stunts. Again, loses points for having Sybil as the editor. *** ½. <p> M Briefings: The Craig-era briefings are different than most in the series as they mostly take place in the field. M (Judi Dench, again excellent in her sixth portrayal of the role) has more screen time than ever and her relationship with Bond is one of the best things about the film. In Quantum of Solace, we see her finally learning to trust Bond’s instincts, even when trusting his instincts is the rough equivalent of letting a bulldog off the chain. **** <p> Villains: As Dominic Greene, Mathieu Amalric is bland but is a believable threat. He also knows how to use an axe when cornered. ***. <p> Villain’s Plot: Again, more believable. Greene is after water (which makes this the Chinatown of Bond movies), making his plans less comic booky and more realistic. *** ½. <p> Villain’s Lair: A hotel in the middle of the desert that looked like a bunch of Legos. Didn’t matter though because Bond burned that bitch to the ground real good. ***. <p> Martinis: A record SIX of them. ****. <p> That makes for a grand total of *** ½. I’m going to go on record and say that Quantum of Solace is the 13th best Bond film of all time. Better than Thunderball, but not quite up to the standards of Live and Let Die.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 12:30 a.m. CST


    by NoHubris

    It looks like they were toying with us about that BSG movie in the fall. At least we have Craig's Bond for now.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 1:37 a.m. CST

    that advisor to the UK prime minister bit

    by Maniaq

    quite a clever touch that - evokes memories of a certain former British prime minister making quite a spectacularly bad decision (which he still refuses to apologise for) based on some... ahem.. bad advice. <p> I wonder if they might leave that thread unresolved at the end of the next film, apparently the penultimate episode in this story arc? I can see Special Branch putting a lot of pressure on Bond to back off - especially if he starts looking into this guy's relationship to the prime minister - but I can't see him going any further than severing Quantum's ties to Downing St. <p> Speaking of unresolved, is 60% of Bolivia's water supply still trapped in a large aquifer or has somebody let them know where to find it??

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 1:40 a.m. CST


    by Prossor

    take a look at virtually every review outside of aicn. mori and harry couldnt give a fuck if its bourne or bond to them it's a spy flick and thats' all that matters to them. i love these reviewers actually talking about what's fleming bond and what's not.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 1:49 a.m. CST

    Complete Utter Shit

    by Odkin

    I like Craig's Bond. He looks like a man, instead of a blow-dried pencil neck like Brosnan. Best Bond since Connery. BUT - this wasn't a movie. It was like what happens when you light up an entire box of firecrackers. Just noise and excitement and light and fire. Giving you a headache and meaning nothing. I can barely even tell you what it was about. It made no sense. An what the HELL is with the aimless background NOISE of a soundtrack?? Where the hell is the damn Bond Theme?? Who cares about the closing credits! This is like a Star Wars or Indy or Superman movie WITHOUT THE FAMOUS THEME! What are they thinking? Every climax scene could have been punched up with the REAL Bond music! An no cute/sexy girl name?? Again - I don't care that the credits say "Strawberry Fields" - why isn't that in the movie???? What a piece of shit.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 1:53 a.m. CST

    Dodgy advisors and stolen water

    by TengoLow

    The bit about the advisor to the Prime Minister protected by an equally dodgy Special Branch is seeds for a potential later plot that may or may not be taken up. A potential plot about Bond and MI6 at war with Special Branch could be very interesting. They seem to be setting up the idea that Bond as a rogue operator is the only thing that can fight a corrupt system. As for the water, Bond tells Camille to tell the Bolivian authorities about it at the end, and that they should dynamite the hidden dams to free up the water and end the drought.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 2:46 a.m. CST

    The Editing...


    The reason I didn't mention "TERRIBLE EDITING" in my review was because it didn't strike me as terrible, but rather impressionistic. <BR><BR>Let me illustrate with metaphor. Have you ever in your life ever had such an incredibly impassioned make out session with someone whom you didn't foresee this happening with? In otherwords, an experience where a rapid fire and intense series of personal experiences flood into you with such succession that it's a blinding flash? One that leaves you with only an impression of eroticism, the passion of lust, the horrified sense of HOLY FUCK? <BR><BR>I think the editing technique in QUANTUM OF SOLACE wasn't ever intended to be a clear and coherent explanation of events in a steady stream... but rather a raging torrent of images and impressions that flood over you giving you a sense of - FUCK FUCK FUCK excitement. That... "HOW THE FUCK DID HE JUST DO THAT" kinda way. <BR><BR>One time, I was driving a friend home during another friend's birthday party from Wichita Falls... but the party was a lock in, and I had 1 hour and 40 minutes to drive 120 miles (round trip) to take this fucker who didn't bother to tell us he had a "bed time" till it was almost too late. <BR><BR>Luckily the highways were absent of police cars and my old 1978 Green Caddy could hit 115 mph nicely. I felt it would be an easy trip. About 48 miles into the trip, someone in the backseat said something crazy. Actually it was my friend Edward - and I turned around, taking my eyes off the road and looked at Edward's face... <BR><BR>As I did - his eyes went saucer shaped and I turned around and saw, I think a herd of cattle across the road. I have a memory of veering quickly left, right, left - center... In there - are flashes of friends screaming - a cow chewing - lots of cattle staring... - blurs, Bon Jovi and the avocado green of the car - then calm easy road. <BR><BR>At somewhere in excess of 100 mph, I successfully navigated a herd of cattle without so much as a scratch on my rather large 1978 Caddy. TO ME - my memories of this - jive exactly with the editing style of QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Impressionistic & the heroic actions of a legend.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3 a.m. CST

    My impressions

    by Pop_aristocrat

    Liked the movie, but not really into it, honestly. Story would work as a straight up revenge plot, but necessity demands a bigger scheme, I suppose, to explain who these guys are (back when Casino Royale was out, I was hoping it would tie into Blofeld, since it predates Dr. No chronolgically) But the water scheme seems really tacked on, and its resolve ultimately underwhelming.<p> Also really hated the editing. I can see what Headgeek is trying to say there, about the editing trying to assail you with a torrent of action, but rather, I could still tell what was going on, but... about as impressed as I am when looking at a pile of jigsaw puzzle pieces as opposed to the completed picture...which is to say, hardly at all. <br> This style of film-making, fine in sparse use, gets annoying after two hours of action-scene killing repetition, and made the movie seem pretty boring to me. <br> Casino Royale blew me away. Far superior.<br> Still, now that revenge is out of the way, really looking forward to next installment.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:22 a.m. CST

    Sorry Harry. Well Written, But Lame Excuse.

    by georges garvaren

    QoS is the worst Bond film I have seen (guess what!? I've seen them all many times). It is a half-way decent action movie, but so far from the world of Bond that I -a HUGE Bond fan- am somewhat saddened by what has been wedged into the cinematic conscience. The "editing" was used to disguise the lack of ingenuity and consistency that the film crew failed to possess. Sit these "action" "fight" scenes next to a Chan flick and the faulty, poorly crafted disguise is easily unveiled; these mother fuckers had no idea how to film action and good Lord does it ever show. For people who have a somewhat devoted alliance to that of Bond, we have yet again been let down. Octopussy tastes like fine champagne to this piss-in-a-bucket shit storm. Ummmmmmm . . .. Olga Kurylenko is hot!

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:36 a.m. CST


    Often times when life, limbs and one's heart are on the line, you do not have time to breathe or even for a beat of the heart. The adrenaline coarses through your system like a shot to the heart and a 1000 images flood in faster and more rapid than standard coherence has an ability to file. <BR><BR>To me, that's what he was doing with the editing - but even within that - he still touched on Bond - what Bond sees - what choice Bond does next - to illustrate the quickness and exactitude that Bond analyzes and puts his response into action. The term "LIGHTNING QUICK INSTINCTS" becomes illustrated in this film. There is a coherence - and we're the MTV generation... the kids that grew up in the aftermath of Eisenstein's Odessa Steps... Tobe Hooper's Dinner Scene... this isn't just some fucking BOURNE thing, this is Hitchcock PSYCHO - there's a history of FLASH EDITING going back to Russian Silent Cinema that subscribes to this style of editing to convey erratic, confused moments of life - and yet here - there's intelligent design by the lead character to navigate that rocky sea of life. <BR><BR>I LOVE IT.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:40 a.m. CST



    ahem... Have you seen... LIVE AND LET DIE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, VIEW TO A KILL, OCTOPUSSY, the Brosnan Bonds? This film stomps the piss and snot out of those limp dick efforts. Does it touch THUNDERBALL, GOLDFINGER,THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE or CASINO ROYALE? Not really - but it is an exceptional Bond film all the same - and nowhere near the dregs of the worst of BOND.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:41 a.m. CST



    People accuse me of hyperbole, but really - where the fuck is the mirror? WORST BOND EVER? Pull the crackpipe from your anal lips and come back to reality. Jesus.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:54 a.m. CST

    The water plot "tacked on"?

    by BillEmic

    I thought that this was basically the point of the whole movie. It was subtle, I'll give you that, but in no way tacked on. The film is making the assertion that in another 20-40 years, when we've all moved on from oil, water will actually become the greatest natural resource for various powers to control (if it isn't already).

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:17 a.m. CST


    by Mr Kite

    That's bullshit Harry. I paid to see a Bond movie not some arty farty toss. I have been involved in two car crashes and one serious motorcycle crash (none were my fault). They didn't look anything like the scenes in this movie whatsoever! When your life is in danger in these types of situations time appears to slow down and it looks as if everthing is moving in slow motion. This phenomenon has been recorded elsewhere by people many times. The other important thing here that has not been mentioned is that your eyes are attached to your brain so when you move your head around fast (whiplash pan) or take in lots of information in a split second (fast edits/cuts)your brain can cope because of that connection. You cannot simulate that with a camera. There is no physical connection. To overcome this it is important to film in a manner that takes this lack of connection into account. You have to allow the brain time to process what it sees on the screen otherwise it is always playing catch up. I have read posts by other talkbackers trying to defend this style of filming and none of them has put forward a good agument. The Bourne Identity had some great action scenes that made the viewer feel as if they were involved in the action and they were brilliantly filmed. Fast, but not too fast. The Bourne Supremacy on the other hand was an unwatchable mess. Casino Royale contained brilliantly choreographed and filmed fights and chase scenes. Fast and exciting but still viewable. Why change a sucessful formula. There are reports appearing on the web that there were a number of problems during the making of this film. Why have these not been researched/reported on AICN? The action scenes in QoS most definitely did not give me a sense of "FUCK FUCK FUCK excitement" or HOW THE FUCK DID HE JUST DO THAT". They gave me a sense of "FUCK FUCK FUCK I paid money to see this mess" and "WHO THE FUCK IS DOING WHAT WITH WHATEVER TO WHO!". Impressionistic Harry? for fuck sake man!

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:18 a.m. CST

    psycho editing

    by Prossor

    that was surgically planned and executed harry, not like the drunken crackhead they led into the editor's room for this raging excitement of a mess.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:44 a.m. CST

    Clint drives villain to middle o desert in EIGER SANCTION

    by Charles Grady


  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:46 a.m. CST

    sorry Harry but I call bullshit on that impressionism theory

    by Maniaq

    they fucked up, plain and simple. <p> even your "explanation" concedes that the film makers have not communicated to the audience what the hell is going on and, intentional or not, that shit just don't fly - this is not just a few people, this is the OVERWHELMING reports from audiences everywhere... <p> I don't think you can invoke Hitchcock either because he hated cutting and tried to avoid it as much as possible - he understood that every time you cut, it's JARRING to the audience. <p> if you like the editing, more power to ya, but personally I hope they seriously consider putting out a recut version - there's a lot going on in this film that's quite interesting, but the way it's been presented falls WAY short of satisfactory

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 6:48 a.m. CST

    Psycho's shower scene?

    by ballyhoo

    You think any of the action bits are edited as well as Hitchcock's brilliant murder scene? Really? They are not even the same thing. An action scene needs to be a mini-story. It needs to have a beginning, middle, and end. The shower scene didn't need that. It just needed to convey that Marion was getting stabbed a lot and it was brutal. There was no struggle, no moment when she knocked the knife out of his hand or kicked him in the crotch. It was an assault. As Bates was cutting and cutting, he was literally cutting the film, too. It was a Hitchcock masterstroke. Nothing in Quantum came close to that, because the action in Quantum was always trying to tell mini-stories. Someone fell and got tangled in a rope, and some pully thing broke or something and tossed him really far. Oh and someone's gun was on the ground. I have no idea how any of the pieces were put in place or how they affected each other. The boat chase ended with Bond flipping the bad guy's boat high into the air. He did something with a rope, but I don't know how exactly. Shit like this happened again and again. My wife kept asking me what was happening, and I kept telling her I didn't know. The is not about putting audience into a HOLY SHIT HOW DID THAT HAPPEN moment, because that cannot be done with pictures and sound. Only with experience. There is no defense of the shitty action in Quantum. None. You can't do it. I don't care how many death-defying things you have done, it doesn't matter.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 7:16 a.m. CST

    Martin Campbell is the only capable Bond director

    by Mike Hunt

    A shame they couldn't bring him back for this one. He directed the best two Bond movies in the past 25 years IMHO. The Broccolis keep hiring directors who have no business directing Bond movies (and most of whom have no previous experience with action films). These other directors are brought in because they're great at directing drama or comedy (Michael Apted directed Gorillas in the Mist, Roger Spottiswood directed City Slockers, Marc Forster directed Monstor's Ball), but they can't direct action. I think John Glen (who directed all the 80s Bond flicks) is still alive. Maybe he should be brought in to direct the next one (if Campbell won't return).

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 7:25 a.m. CST

    Impressionist editing

    by DannyOcean01

    It's a Bond flick, not a Bunuel film. And I can't wait to see the next Bay flick with its a cut a millisecond filmmaking and read some dump of a review compared to this joygasm. Laughable.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 7:25 a.m. CST


    by DannyOcean01


  • Nov. 16, 2008, 7:34 a.m. CST

    It all depends on what you want in a bond..

    by emeraldboy

    film. or how bond reacts to things. People want a more brutal bond. it seems to me. That is what we got in Casino roayle. He didnt say much. Bond is a british creation so you cant turn him into a rambo or a Segal chracter where he uses brute force to beat the shite out of people. this is why tarantino will never helm a bond film. Tarantino's recent films are full of a kind of rage. and they are very cold. Vespa Lynd broke bonds heart and betrayed him. in QT's hands bond would embark on revenge filled bloodbath. that is not bonds way. nor should it ever be. If RR got his hands on Bond, he would want to be in charge of evertyhing. I think the next bond director will be Joe wright. But it wont happen straight away. They will give him a shot. I am not surre why they chose Forster. finally were they trying to imply that Bond and M are mother and son. There is a line of dialoug. in the plane with Camille and bond. He says that they tried to kill someone who was close to him. Quantum placed someone as her bodygaurd.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 7:39 a.m. CST

    The reason they hired forster is...

    by emeraldboy

    Eon doesnt want a starry big name director who will Be bigger than the franchise. that is why qt or RR will get to make a bond film. nor should. That is why the berg will never get a bond film either.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 8:12 a.m. CST

    This shitty editing style has got to go


    Those explanations are complete and utter bullshit. Greengrass and Forster and such have no idea how to shoot action, end of story. I guarantee you that if the movie was shot like CR nobody(or hardly anyone) would give a shit about the plot being too thin etc. Everyone would be busy drooling over the mindblowing, well staged, expertly shot and directed action.<p>The action was supposed to carry this movie, but because it was shot so badly, it might as well not been there at all, the audience would feel the same anyway. No, wait, this "style" makes the audience feel cheated, teased endlessly, cockteased without satisfaction, a cinematic equivalent of blue balls. You think something happened, but you don't know what, in the slightest, so there's no emotion, no attachment, no nothing. Well, except for a lot of frustration and those other feelings I mentioned before. That's NOT how I want to feel after leaving the cinema. Do you?<p>

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 8:15 a.m. CST

    I know all about bad communication...

    by emeraldboy

    That is why our govt in ireland is falling part at seems.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 8:21 a.m. CST

    lay off the crack Harry..this film WAS A MESS!!

    by FleshMachine

    : /

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 8:22 a.m. CST


    by FleshMachine

    action - drama = YAWN!!

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 8:23 a.m. CST

    harry you say "This isn't Jason Bourne. "

    by FleshMachine


  • Nov. 16, 2008, 9:04 a.m. CST

    What was also very badly handled were..

    by emeraldboy

    the opening and closing credit sequences of the movie. Why on earth did they ditch the gun barrel sequence to the end. The opening credits looked artificial. and they didnt work. They worked in the last film because the plot centered around Casino Roayale. I liked the casino Royale theme you knwo my name. but the song this time was awful. bond songs are I know. I hope As someone else said that they do a superb job on this film on DVD. The bond makers run risk of making idiots out of thier audiences. that is something they should not do.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Seen it :)))))

    by DC Films

    And boy it's damn good. Takes what worked best in CR - tone and aesthetic of the bathroom scenes with Vesper and the stairwell fight and makes a whole movie this way. People that say it's not Bond are half right - it's not cinematic Bond, it's better than that. This is Fleming's Bond and it's about time. Thanks Marc Forster :)

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 9:06 a.m. CST

    When half the audience think M got shot...

    by neal2zod

    you know that's some bad editing. I'm actually still not sure if she got shot and was wearing a vest, or if Mr. White got shot in that scene for that matter. And please don't tell me that was done on purpose.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 9:22 a.m. CST

    this movie seems to be splitting people down the..

    by emeraldboy

    middle. you either like it or you dont.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 9:45 a.m. CST

    The movie is not down the middle

    by Mr Kite

    emeraldboy far more people dislike it than like it. The most common complaint being the filming of the action scenes

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 9:46 a.m. CST

    One thing Harry nailed:

    by mossad77

    If you really think this is the WORST Bond film, you need your head examined. Come off it, you prefer View To A Kill? Some people just have to go for the hyperbole pill.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 10:40 a.m. CST

    The Editing

    by nascentia

    First off, I LOVED this movie. I thought it was amazing. Not quite as great as Casino Royale, but very, very damn close. I love the gritty, bad-ass, grounded in reality Bond. That said, the action editing really does suck, horribly. The rest of the film, all gorgeous shots, well-framed and edited. But all of the action scenes were just terrible. Not the scenes, but jesus, the editing was bad. Harry, respect you man, but you're crazy defending the edits in those scenes. There was no reason for them, other than Forster just doesn't know how to do it. Not his fault, and I don't hold it against him, but let's be real - the action scenes needed a better director. That said, I still loved the movie.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 10:50 a.m. CST

    One that isn’t in the science fiction bullshit of the 80s and 90

    by Evil Hobbit

    But man did they have a ridiculously high tech Minority Report computer system!

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 10:55 a.m. CST

    the computer system

    by MamoVaka

    That technology is already here.. ever use an iphone or ipod touch?

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:15 a.m. CST

    I can see why people say it's the worst Bond...

    by neal2zod

    Mossad - the Roger Moore movies are probably 'worse', but it's like apples and oranges. They're disposable camp and need to be judged as such. And bad-campy is usually more forgivable than bad-serious. It's like if the next Nolan Batman turned out to be awful, it would be far more crushing and piss off more people than Batman and Robin. Personally, i thought QOS was boring and incomprehensible, but not entirely disastrous.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:17 a.m. CST

    I have seen the movie twice...

    by emeraldboy

    My criticisms of the movie still stand. which is possibly less then some who have possibly seen it more times then I. I will say something in the movies favour. The cinematography was stunning. that does not get away from the awfulness of the movie in terms of its awful action sequences and the atrocious editing and the weak story and (in my opinion) dull villain.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    God bless you, Harry!!!!!

    by Jack Wade

    I've been a Bond fan for more than 30 years, and I have no problem with the Bond in "QoS." I thought the film kicked a truckload of ass. So it was different in tone and pace. BFD. Get over it. I did, back when Roger took over the role. And believe me, you don't want those days back again, when 007 told a joke, then winked at the camera, then waited while the music played some sort of wacky cue. "Quantum of Solace" is better than almost any Bond movie you can think of, except "Casino Royale." It's a great movie. Get over yourselves. Enjoy it.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:23 a.m. CST

    I have said before and it has been admitted...

    by emeraldboy

    by no less a person then the legendary bond designer and architect Ken Adam. Bond became bloated and under Cubby Brocolli and Harry Saltzman, they put more into the budgets than they did into the stories. old bond has become very dated. I caught a glimpse of connery on the TV in Thunderball. It is all down to interpretation. ie how each actor interprets the role.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Here is what I thought of it.

    by NoahTall

    Take the action chase scene from the start of Casino Royale. Extend it so that it is now 3/4 of the movie. Film it with shaky cam. Then insert the dialogue and character building parts into the movie in two or three minute snipits. I enjoyed the movie but it was like a Michael Bay version of bond. 90% action and explosions, 10% substance. And I still hate shakycam. It's only use is to let sub par action choreographers get away with being lazy. The chase scene in CR was great. I couldn't tell if any of the action scenes in QoS even involved people. If you had substituted mannequins it would likely have looked much the same.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST

    No Need To Take Shots, Harry. Youre Bigger Than That

    by georges garvaren

    Much bigger . . .ahem. Seen 'em all = seen 'em all, so, yes, I have seen those films you mention and yes they are odd ducks in the Bond catalog. But where they succeed over QoS is, again, what I and many others (most notably "top" critics from around the globe) have been mentioning. This is James Bond by name and name alone. He bares no emotional/situational resemblance to past Bonds and certainly -not the Bond of Flemming, not even that of Casino Royale. What makes this most annoying is the steps taken on CR to interpret Bond truest to the source and film a Bond that's back basics. One rid of all that Bronson hoop-la/Moore cheeky nonsense. Believable, somewhat purposeful action sequences and lots of insight into Bonds mindset were the payoff of on CR and obviously this was seen as a resounding success. Those steps have now been melted into a puddle of gooey shit by Goldfinger's laser! Bond is now some roid-raddled rage machine reaping revenge in mish-mashed handfuls of painfully delirious action sequences. Your "interpretation" of this action is very just, due mostly to you not leaving room for disagreement. We can always find excuses for mistakes -just look at my life. If this film was cut to represent the feelings one might assume that arise in these kind of situations, then this was a mistake -in “reality” none of this would ever happen so how/why make it “more” realistic? I felt no sense of danger/excitement watching Bond teeter on the edge -the edge was visible for a nano second and then replaced with some other incomprehensible shot. More likely is that the Forster attempted to ride an annoying trend of fast edits and shaky hand-held shots. He comes off amateurish, as if he's just taking a 101 Film Studies class and as been told that hand-held shots gives you a more documentary like feeling. The action in CR is the best of Bond, QoS is the worst. CR had an intelligent, eager Bond with just enough of an edge to be in his sort of field, QoS had a maniac in well-tailored suits. My feelings on QoS are not based on a preconceived idea of what this film should have been; I was let down by poor craftsmanship and a complete turnabout from the wonderful character brought to screen only a few years past. Perhaps upon repeat viewing I will forgive and enjoy (it worked for Die Another Day for Pete's sake) but as it stands this was a major letdown.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 1:48 p.m. CST

    The editing...

    by TylerDurden3395

    Sucked on chase scenes but worked for the hand to hand stuff as it gave the fights a sense of unrehearsed realism.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Can't wait to see it

    by ufoclub1977

    although I'm still in love with Casino's lead lady... Check out It's my homemade doritos commercial (only 30 seconds long)

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 2:53 p.m. CST

    The "HOW did THAT Happen?" stuff can be

    by chromedome

    great, or frustrating. I see what they were trying to do, Harry, and in certain moments they achieved it. For me, though, most of that editing was frustrating.<p>I still liked the film overall, and Craig's Bond is the Bond I want to see. Hate to be the poor bastard who tries to take on this role after he is done with it....

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Sorry Harry=

    by j2talk

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Sorry Harry, but GoldenEye was the best modern Bond

    by j2talk

    that film got it right, this one? to much is missing of what made a Bond movie

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Here is a radical proposal...

    by emeraldboy

    They need to stop making more then one bond movie. with the same actor. and this should happen from(say) bond 26 onwards. or they should stop making them altogether. Bond will contiune to make money. Bond being a lincense to print money is not a good idea. something needs to be done to freshen up this series. and I suggest to start with there should be a bit of a gap. there was only two years between CR and QOS. which is not long enough. They need a break to find a new director and writer. and they also and this is the tricky part. to think about bonds future. If the franchise has one. they can start by at least brining back Vic armstrong. and a maybe john glen.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:36 p.m. CST

    James Bourne

    by thot

    That's the bottom line. The Bourne series, for better or worse, has radically influenced and completely transformed the Bond franchise. General audiences were primed for this due the excellent Bourne films, but let's not kid ourselves, this isn't James Bond, it's Bourne. But who am I to argue with success? They're making dumptrucks of money with this crap. I just hope that someday, as the credits used to tease, that James Bond will indeed be back.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 3:45 p.m. CST

    I have had a brilliant idea...

    by emeraldboy

    This year Ireland rejected the lisbon treaty. One of the campaigners on the no side was a man called declan Ganley. Here is the idea for future bond movies. Base the villains on his orgnisation called Libertas! libertas do exist. they came from nowhere. nobody knows anything about them or how they were funded and there is some talk of a link to homeland security in the US. I cant stand this bloke and shadowy mavericks.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:24 p.m. CST

    It's still shit Harry

    by Odkin

    Harry - it sounds like you're explaining a joke. We understand it, just that "t'ain't funny, McGee". The movie sucks. I'm not invested in Bond one way or the other. Some Bond movies are great, others are camp and stupid, some are boring. I'm not judging this by other Bond movies or by what I think Fleming wrote, I'm judging it on it's own merits as a movie. It's incoherent. It's confusing. It misses key and critical elements of the Bond franchise - music, funny girl names, gunbarrel opening, etc. *I* thought M got shot. Sure looked like it. That Opera scene was just a director masturbating over his own artsiness. I had no idea who that Bolivian girl was supposed to be half the time. How did drivers magically pull up to the front door every time Bond needed to get away? Why did the hotel at the end blow up and catch fire like it was loaded with explosives? This movie needed one of those "may cause seizure" warnings they put on video games.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:32 p.m. CST

    I Don't Even Like Craig And I Really Enjoyed This...

    by Rebeck2

    I'm a lifetime Bond fan who likes my Bond movies (gasp) FUN and EXCITING, not this gritty realism bullshit that seems to have become the myth of being the "real" Bond. You mean the Bond that had Dr. No with metal hands and Rosa Klebb with the poison shoe? Oh yeah, those were the REALISTIC DAYS. Shut the fuck up. Bond has always been fantasy. And what I like about this movie is even though it plays in a more modern world is it still feels very Bondian. It keeps the action moving and the technology is state of the art - and Bond himself has some looseness and coolness to him, he doesn't have as much of a stick up his ass as Craig had last time. It's a very entertaining movie that leaves you wanting that next installment. What else do you people want?? I still think Craig is a little too dour and pouty, but this proves you can build a great Bond movie around him and he doesn't have to suck all the life out of it. Would I have liked the action cut a tad more calmly? Yes. But you still get a great adrenaline rush and it makes you want to see it a second and third time just to catch stuff you missed. This film has brought back a real visceral feel, now they can adjust it down in the next one and pull back a little. But Bond IS the ultimate badass in this film. The way he takes out that elevator of MI6 agents and doubles back to talk to M is uber-cool. The action is "thrown away" in acting parlance and in a way it makes the action cooler. I actually think this movie will age better and be better re-watchability than the bloated buzzkilling CR.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Roger Moore was closer to Fleming's Bond than Craig

    by Drath

    Seriously, Harry, just stop pretending you pay attention to literary source material. Bond was not a thug in the books, he wasn't a "realistic" spy and frankly the character in the books would be very dated to us now. If Craig is YOUR long-awaited terminator version of Bond, fine, but don't kid yourself that it's Fleming's._________________________________________________________ As for this movie, I thought it was okay, it did evoke From Russia With Love and a few others, and that was nice. Still I didn't think it was all great, as those other movies were more self contained that this one was (drawing on set up from the previous movie and leaving a lot hanging for the next). The Bond girl's story didn't interest me at all, I was grateful that it didn't take up much time as we had seen it done before (what was the girl's name anyway, all I remember is Vesper, much like I could only remember Teresa for several films after OHMSS--until Barabara Bach, but I was mad in love). I'm no judge of action editing, I just know the action scenes weren't as exciting as the ones in CR. Greene was a good and oily villain, but somehow I didn't think he was drawn as perfectly as he could have been--the actor was perfect casting though. I would have liked more of Strawberry Fields since she was hyped as the Bond girl despite being a second helping at best (I guess she's the only one he slept with--also whoever complained about that being out of continuity is forgetting that Bond recovered for a while with Vesper before CR ended). I think people are waaaaay off the mark thinking that Jaws and Goldfinger were foreshadowed in this movie. I'm pretty sure Greene's bodyguard--the guy people think will become Jaws--got blown up real good and before that was kind of a useless whimp. Besides, Jaws was the height of corny Bond villains, he's one of the last ones I can see fitting the new direction of the franchise. Goldfinger was also corny, and I think Fields's fate was just an homage and nothing more. I wouldn't blame them for remaking some of the older movies-but the one I'm looking forward to the most is On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Who will be Blofeld? Who will be Teresa Draco? Can they get more than one movie out of THOSE characters? My other complaints about this one were the shitty as hell opening song (please stop letting anyone but David Arnold write the songs!), and a sense that a lot of substance was being held back for the next one (Greene and the finace's secrets were revealed to Bond but not us). Also the end didn't leave me dying to see the next one, just hoping they'd give me more next time. I hope I like the next one better. This one will need some time to grow on me.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:35 p.m. CST

    HAVE Better Re-watchability

    by Rebeck2

    Is what I meant to say and it's still a little dodgy, but you know what I mean.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Did anyone else think that gregory bean..

    by emeraldboy

    looked like a bond villain. from a bond movie. over twenty years ago. minds is a bit fuzzy at the moment. mister kidd and mister.......

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Marc Forester should be shot for this crapfest!

    by blue meanie

    After the incredible high that was Casino Royale with one of the greatest Bonds in one of the greatest Bond movies ever comes this total flaccid crapfest of a movie. THe action sequences, which are the hallmark of all Bond films, were totally incoherent and incomprehensible, with the director trying to create a hodge podge of 1 second closeup images of details that are absolutely impossible to follow when edited together. Who shot who, who died, what happened, where did they have no idea. I felt so cheated. Within a span of 30 seconds, you are bombarded with 30 lightning fast scenes that do a piss-poor job of showing action. Only a fanboy with a serious case of Attention Deficit Disorder would enjoy this fecal mess. It's as if Forester was trying hard to imitate the frantic directing style of Paul Greengrass, but just forgot how to tell a story in the process. It's a complete visual mess. He spends more time trying to come up with gimmicky, gaudy font titles for all the locales instead of putting the work into telling a story and creating characters that you either love or loathe. As always, both Daniel Craig and Judi Dench were in fine form, but had very little to work with to make this film shine. The Bond girls were not exactly the charismatic Bond girls we know, love and drool over. And the villian was more wimpy than sinister. After watching this highly anticipated movie, I had to go home and rewatch Casino Royale to get the awful taste out of my head. Go rewatch Casino Royale and you'll see how action sequences SHOULD BE directed like. Thank Marc Forester for creating one the lowpoints in the entire Bond franchise.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Have you even read 'QoS'

    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    I have said this before and I'm saying it again:<p>There's no such thing as James Bond anymore. There are simply variations upon variations. James Bond has been disarticulated and rearticulated so may times now that the original is only known to a very rare few, and I'm certainly not one of them. But I have a better idea than the delusional construct who wrote this review.<p>The fact that Harry is telling people that this is the closest to Ian Fleming's James Bond is pure smoke'n'mirrors and clearly indicates that a lot of the people reviewing this film base their entire knowledge of James Bond upon the films and not the literary source.<p>Fair enough, the films represent a significant proportion of 007 Canon but don't try to assume knowledge you don't's condscending to your readers and very, very ignorant.<p>This is a good film, but it's not a great Bond film. It is underwhelming, derivative and lost somewhere between then and now: how else can anyone explain Strawberry Fields and the homage. Bond could easily have dealt with that situation a number of other ways - this films wants to be so many things to so many people and, accordingly, fails.<p>Those in charge need to decide where they are going with this concept because side-steps are worse than going backwards.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 5:29 p.m. CST


    by Pop_aristocrat

    I still say tacked on, yes. Yes, Bond saves the day in Bolivia... kind of. Honestly, just killing the general would have invalidated his contracts, so Girl Friday really stopped Quantum's plot. Oh well. <p> Of course, all of their measures to destabilize the government are still in place, so all they have to do is follow the chain of command to the next highest officer who wasn't in the house that hydrogen built (and blew up) in order to have them sign the contract, and lead the conquering army in to conquer Bolivia.<p> Also it seemed to me that the film established that Quantum had bought up 'wildlife reserves' all over the world, presumably doing the same thing, all of them hoarding water. So, freeing Bolivia does nothing to stop this. <p> And I for one found it odd that Bond had to do, and could do, nothing to clear his name at the end of the film. Here's a guy who escaped custody, is framed for killing cops and bodyguards and another agent, and at the end he finds the guys who framed him, kills them all, and burns down their base, included any evidence that he'd been framed, and suddenly he's back on the job. <br> It seems to me that he would have returned home, and MI6 would see a psychopath who just killed a known associate of the agent he murdered the night before, a businessman convicted of no crime that was associated with the US, and aided in the murder of the general...though he was a criminal so whatever on that one. <br>But wasn't all the evidence of their evil dealings burned up? So wouldn't Bond still have to face trial? <br> Like I said, I enjoyed the movie, but the story seemed a little half-cooked, and I didn't like the editing, regardless of Harry's well argued points. I get the adrenaline feel more from a torrent of fast, clearly shot action sequences than I do the shaky cam. If you give me enough action, my mind has to process the shots in chunks already anyway, but at least I can see what's going on. If I'm "in the action" my vision doesn't tighten on a narrow focal point, and I don't lose perspective...not to the extent of the editing in this film. <br> Its fine, but not as strong of a follow-up to Casino Royale as I would have liked.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 7:13 p.m. CST

    One plot thread I thought that would've been cleared up...

    by TylerDurden3395

    Anyone else thought that in the end Bond was going to blow the dam up and return the water back to the Bolivian people? No in the end we still see those thirsty bastards sitting and waiting at the station waiting for the last train out. Weird.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 8:24 p.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    ... anyone who says Roger Moore has anything in common with Ian Fleming's Bond has never read a word of Fleming. Period. You can't possibly make that argument with a straight face. <P>I can fully accept that there are people who like the Roger Moore films for what they are. But don't try and peddle the idea that they have anything in common with the original character in the real books, 'cos that's some crazy boooooshit.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 8:28 p.m. CST

    Blowing up the dam wasn't Bond's mission

    by TengoLow

    He wanted Greene. He didn't have the means. He told Camille to tell the now-saved government to do it. She's the one who's one of their agents, after all.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Finally saw this flick today

    by Manatee

    I loved it! Judging by all the reviews, I was expecting a nonstop slug-fest. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is lot of detail and character work happening here. They have really laid the foundation for a SPECTRE-type organization, and I'm fired up! Also, this film LOOKS magnificent. It is edited within an inch of its life, but the look and feel are a dramatic shift from the rest of the series. I can see where purest would be put off, but I don't understand the venom being spewed at this film. As a lifelong Bond fan, I grew tired of watching the same film over and over again. I welcome this shift in tone. And Craig is utterly fantastic. He inhabits this role completely. Yes, Bond is a pretty chilly bastard (you know the scene of which I'm speaking), but he doesn't have the luxury of sentimentality. Revenge, yes, but sentimentality, no. Sentimentality doesn't facilitate the mission. For those who don't like this ruthless Bond, just wait a few years; I'm sure the goofiness will return. For those of us who suffered through the goofiness of the 80's and 90's, however, this is a glorious return to form for Bond.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 9:54 p.m. CST

    Just saw this...

    by Charlie_Allnut

    AWESOME! Reminds me of Thunderball and Dr. No - its all about the mission, Bond is all business. I have to say I once again prefer Bond to Jason Bourne any day of the week (this was in question after Die Another Day)!

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Wow the irrational hate on this talkback is rather stunning

    by Charlie_Allnut

    I guess you could get Sacha Cohen to play Bond in Roger Moore mode, and bring back redneck sheriffs,space battles, giant lasers, and Dr. Evil and what not. That would be waaaay better. People need to relax and learn to enjoy themselves. I own and love every Bond film in its own way, and I have to say this is the Bond I've hoped for for years...

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 10:46 p.m. CST

    The intro music was horrid, but the movie was good!

    by Snake Foreskin

    I absolutely hated the horrible theme song snd grsphics for this one. Casino Royale's intro was worlds better. This movie had some good moments, but all in all was not as good as Casino Royale. I preferred the character interaction in the last film. I didn't care for the storyline. But I am now officially of the opinion that Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond. Perhaps the closest thing to what Ian Fleming wrote. I hope the next film is way better. Marc Forster didn't do a great job directing this one. Find a much better director. hell, bring back Martin Campbell! He has done the Bond franchise a lot of good.

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:20 p.m. CST

    about Roger Moore

    by Maniaq

    ok he's not my favourite Bond, despite being the one I grew up with (he played the character for over a decade!) and I wouldn't hesitate to agree his films are at best a parody of the books - certainly they've taken their liberties and some of them share only the title of a short story (ahem) in common with anything Ian Fleming actually wrote. <p> But Roger Moore was one of Fleming's favourite choices to play the part and by ALL reports was given the seal of approval by Fleming HIMSELF. This is not some fan's personal take on the matter - this is endorsement by THE ACTUAL AUTHOR OF THE BOOKS. Don't take my word for it - do some reading for yourself - I am not making this up. <p> Ian Fleming LOVED Roger Moore as James Bond - and if memory serves (this part I can't say 100% for sure) I believe he even gave Moore a bit of advice when he first took on the role - which was to stop trying to play the character like Connery, all brutal and tough, but instead be more suave and charming like he WROTE the character in the books. <p> Again, don't take my word for it, see for yourself - watch Moore be all tough like Connery in Live and Let Die, and then watch his portrayal of the character evolve when he goes up against Fleming's cousin in The Man With The Golden Gun... <p> jus sayin

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:31 p.m. CST

    I'm pretty sure that Fleming died

    by BillEmic

    way before Roger Moore took up the mantle of Bond. I won't deny that Fleming suggested Moore in the early stages before they even cast Connery, but Fleming didn't live long enough to see Moore take up the role. I believe he passed away around the time of "Thunderball."

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:32 p.m. CST

    Re: Moore in Live and Let Die

    by BillEmic

    Moore is hardly "tough like Connery" in Live and Let Die. He's posh, effete, and positively out of place in the gritty and impoverished 1970's Harlem setting of the film...

  • Nov. 16, 2008, 11:33 p.m. CST

    No dig on Roger Moore

    by BillEmic

    I think he's one of the coolest and most self-deprecating actors around, and I get a lot of enjoyment out of his Bond films. But he's quite a bit of a dandy as Bond...far from Connery's more thuggish portrayal.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, midnight CST


    by somethingcool

    Post if the action confused you. Maybe it's one of those things that come with being young like being able to tell when cell phones are ringing from over a mile away or listening to loud music but I could always understand what was going on.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:35 a.m. CST

    One of the best political thrillers since SYRIANA...

    by BurnHollywood

    ...And I fully agree, Ender Smites Foes. Quantum is an entirely realistic organization, a multinational arrangement of multibillionaires cynically manipulating resource markets for callous profit...I'm utterly shocked that such a wholly believable take on modern geopolitics and macroeconomics would appear in a Bond film.<p> For Chrissakes, the Bolivian water crises that Greene precipitates is actually lifted from existing headlines:<p>

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Why can't you guys...

    by Odkin

    Why can't you separate the actors, the story, the script, and the Direction? Just cuz we all like Craig as Bond does NOT make it a good movie! Just cuz you like a serious, vengeance driven Bond does NOT make it a good movie! Just cuz you like real-world threats instead of mad scientists does NOT make it a good movie. The story contained good ideas, and the actors were good, but the actual script was a muddled mess. The direction was simply incompetent. Everyone here praising the movie sounds like the people who praised Miami Vice and Snakes on a Plane, and other faddy failures that don't stand the test of time. Or maybe like fans who think every Batman movie is great just because BATMAN is cool. Trust me, you will eventually look back in embarassment.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:59 a.m. CST

    Like the gif change?

    by PirateEmery

    You're welcome.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:10 a.m. CST

    just got back from seeing it.. felt the need for my 2 cents

    by soup74

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:14 a.m. CST

    just got back from seeing it.. felt the need for my 2 cents

    by soup74

    oops, didnt mean to hit return.. plus im drunk... <br><br>anyway.. fun movie, but it felt small. like a small part of a bigger picture.. which is fine when you're dealing with a TV show episode, but not a major motion picture. i felt after all was said and done that all bond did was kill another henchman. I guess i should be happy that this is going to lead to a bigger story, but fuck, i paid $10 (actually $20 to take my date) and i left feeling that this really didnt change a thing except for bond being over vespa. i hope they reveal the 'blofield-like' villan in the next film, because this was kind of a let down, even though the film itself was enjoyable.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:57 a.m. CST

    Hey, soup...

    by PirateEmery

    Isn't that like 4 cents?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:59 a.m. CST


    by PirateEmery

    I totally think that the 'Blofeld-like' villain is totally going to be that Guy Haines fellow. Too bad the Haines Estate sequence was cut from the end...

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:03 a.m. CST

    I think I'll wait for this to come on Blu-ray...

    by uberfreak

    Sounds like it's a miss on many levels.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:37 a.m. CST

    BillEmic - ya got me

    by Maniaq

    obviously Moore couldn't actually BE tough like Connery - in ANYTHING! I meant that's the kind of Bond he was going for in his first outing, which is understandable really, since that approach worked so well for the other guy... <p> I admit my memory is a bit sketchy about who advised him to ditch that tact, or even where I read about it, but if he was already dead then obviously it wasn't Fleming himself. Fleming DID endorse him (and David Niven who is closer to Moore than Connery) playing Bond tho - I think the only reason he didn't get the part was he was already playing the Saint

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:44 a.m. CST

    Just caught a screening.....

    by DarthRazor

    .....And I still don’t know if I liked this movie. It’s nowhere near as strong as Casino Royale. I had the same feeling walking out of this one as I did walking out of Matrix Reloaded. Loved the first one and was willing to forgive the second one because it was “building to something bigger” and was let down by the third installment and then ultimately hated the second one as a result. Here I think they have potentially opened this up to a much larger stage in the next one, but we shall see in 2 or 3 years. Also I did not know that the plot was going to rely so heavily on references to the events of the first film. My girlfriend who did not rewatch the first film before seeing this was confused by many of the Vesper references and as per the murmurs outside of the theater so were the majority of the casual Bond fans. “Who was the guy in Russia at the end?” “What was with the necklace, why did the Canadian girl have one too?” Craig and Dench are great and really do carry the film, and yes the editing makes this tough to watch at points, particularly the first car chase and the foot chase during the horse race, but overall not as horrendous as some accounts above, but the biggest drawback is a very confusing “huh?” inducing plot. I sat through this for a little over 90 minutes and I still don’t know what to make of it. Also as a Bond fan it is a big let down/missed opportunity that this was not the introduction to SPECTRE, but who knows maybe it will be/was in some sequel retcon.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:46 a.m. CST

    Maniaq - Fleming was dead by Moore's era

    by Steve Rogers

    Methinks you may be talking out of yer arse.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 5:57 a.m. CST

    Do any people out there actually like the shaky cam style?

    by Dreamfasting

    I can't stand shaky-cams. I go to a movie to SEE a movie, not just a big noisy blur. The car chase and sewer chase were so awfully shot that I wondered if it was worth staying for the rest of the film. Are filmmakers getting out of touch with their audience or are there people out there who actually like that style of film and I'm just starting to get too old for this medium?

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6 a.m. CST

    Philip french said in the observer last week...

    by emeraldboy

    That Eon hoped that you remembered what happened to vespa lynd. by the time the next bond film comes around. Eon will hope that you remember dominic greene and his connection to quantum. This is a device used by the lost writers. questions left unanswered and the audience being left to come up some of the answers.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:09 a.m. CST

    garth franklin has just posted his review of qos...

    by emeraldboy

    and here it is....

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:48 a.m. CST

    garth franklin

    by Mr Kite

    Thanks for the link emeraldboy. That was the best review of QoS I have read so far. It sums up my view of the film perfectly. Garth mentions the good parts as well as the bad and explains his views clearly and intelligently.I have just about lost all faith in AICN and its often amatuerish, puerile reviews. Other online reviewers have also mentioned the problems that occured during the making of this film and discussed the effect they have had on the finished movie. No such mention is made here. No doubt they don't want to upset the people who pay to advertise on this site.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:10 a.m. CST

    Re: Maniaq

    by BillEmic

    I agree with you that Roger Moore could have truly been a great Bond if only the material had been written for him. By the time he got a decent enough script, he was already too old to really carry the franchise (see: For Your Eyes Only). In his younger days when he was doing "The Saint" TV show he was one of the most handsome and suave men in England.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Harry: Selling Ice to an Inuit

    by toadkillerdog

    Forster is simply the wrong director for Bond. I read Harry's inspired defense of Forster's approach, and I honestly think Harry would try and sell ice to an inuit, but I aint buying it. I can not remember a shorter Bond film, and especially one that lacked any true 'Bond' moments. I know that Bond is being built from ground up, but it was a step backward in QoS. Craig was outstanding as a brutally efficient killing machine. But that is all he was. Bond is so much more. Even in CR - you could see the evolution throughout the movie of the real Bond. I do not buy it that just because this is a direct sequel that Bond is simply in guided missile mode. It is not Bourne, but it is too damn Bourne like. That is no slam at Bourne because I like those movies as well, but Bond is a totally different character. Forster does not get it, and his editing is total crap. None of the fight scenes evoke any real excitement or danger. All that being said, this is not a bad movie. I did enjoy it as an escapist entertainment. The story is pedestrian, the action is predictable and not really memorable. But Craig is outstanding. Now, his simply needs scripts and a director worthy of his talent and commitment to the character.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:08 a.m. CST

    I have a radical suggestion for the next bond director

    by emeraldboy

    Micheal Mann. or sir ridley scott. They need someone on the set who can stand thier ground with La Brocolli. Scott is a control freak but his movies always look great. but and this is the cruical point the guy knows action. So its either Mann and that would be radical or Scott or Danny Boyle. Boyle or scott. Boyle would be a great choice. in fact a bond movie by boyle and frank cotteral boyce. one last one MIcheal winterbottom.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 9:25 a.m. CST

    QoS was just okay. Bring back Martin Campbell!

    by SpyGuy

    Campbell directed GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE, two of the all-time best Bond flicks. Campbell gets Bond and anyone who says otherwise needs to be gang-raped by a pack of spider monkeys.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Here is what I think they will do...

    by emeraldboy

    It may smack of desperation but here goes....they will let the craig bond movies go to shit. They will squeeze every living dime out of the Fleming bond cannon. and once the fleming cannon is over. they will relaunch bond again. New actor, new director and new writer. They threw tons of money at campbell to return for this and he turned them down. here is where I believe Cubby brocoli made a huge mistake. They should have kept kevin McCrory on thier side, rather than have the long running legal battle, which they won.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:31 a.m. CST

    or they may decide to relaunch bon with campbell..

    by emeraldboy


  • Nov. 17, 2008, 11:40 a.m. CST


    by utz_world

    If you haven't seen QoS, don't read! <p>10 <p>9 <p>8 <p>7 <p>6 <p>5 <p>4 <p>3 <p>2 <p>1 Since we now know that Vesper's boyfriend is not dead and was not kidnapped, how does he fit into the mix? Is he a Quantum agent? Why did they set up Vesper in CR? Was she merely a pawn in their game to out Le Chiffre? <p> I'm intrigued to see how they handle this issue in the next one.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:44 p.m. CST

    I saw it, I liked it a lot...

    by Abominable Snowcone

    But in a way it was also kind of forgettable once it ended. I like Craig as Bond, but seeing the "new" rough-around-the-edges brutal Bond was done in "Casino." I guess I was hoping for a little more character development. Craig had what, maybe 15 lines of dialogue (not counting one or two-word responses). I'm not looking for any Moore-style campy humor, but...shee-it I don't know. The stylish words on the screen that announced locations were also kind of distracting. And the gold? Strange.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:52 p.m. CST


    by Abominable Snowcone

    (Possible spoilers) You're right about the machine gun. I'm not a firearms enthusiast, so I don't know what kind of gun that is on the poster, but he doesn't use one in the finale. The only time he has a machine gun is during the car chase at the beginning.<p> I didn't think Fields was merely window dressing. She was sent to have Bond come back to London. Instead, he seduces her. It's the first time we've seen Craig's Bond do that--seduce a woman just because he wants a piece. I felt it was important to the plot because of what happens to her (nice allusion to "Goldfinger"), and M uses it to teach the still-rough Bond a lesson about using people on his own team (her quote about "she was just an office girl" or whatever). You can see in Bond's eyes that there was some remorse. At least, I thought so.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST


    by Abominable Snowcone

    I agree...the theme song was grating. I missed Chris Cornell. "You Know My Name" was great by comparison, and it WAS pretty good to begin with.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Just saw it

    by Leafy McPlantsalot

    Didn't hate it. Think Craig is great as Bond, practically carries the movie himself. That said, this doesn't hold a candle to Casino Royale. Mark Foster does not know how to shoot an action sequence. All shaky closeups, never establishes the environment or who is where. Campbell has made some shit movies but the action direction in Royale was much much better. The script for this one is pratically non existent. Bond travels to an exotic local, finds the guy he's looking for, chases him in a huge action set piece, kills him, gets a bit of information and goes to the next local to repeat this order of events once again. The opera scene was great, best scene in the movie. Royale just had way more going for it. The well written love story with all the witty verbal sparing, the card game wich gave bond a chance to flex his charm and charisma etc. Solace was just a long revenge action flick, which is fine, it just wasn't great or even very very good. It was fine. I'll see the next one too.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:11 p.m. CST


    by drewlicious

    Bring back Martin Campbell. He knew that audiences actually want to see the stuntwork. This one had a pretty weak plot and an even weaker villain. Another sneering frenchman...meh. The last scene was fairly satisfying though. I'm hopeful for the next one. They'll probably wrap this whole plot up by then and I'm hoping for a decent villain.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:17 p.m. CST

    They reallly upped the ante on action...

    by blindambition238

    but unfortunately most of it was incoherent. <p> I think the pacing was well done though. It didn't feel like a 90 minute movie (and I mean that in a good way).

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:18 p.m. CST

    I know what the new franchise needs...

    by Abominable Snowcone

    a "Jaws." Or even an "Oddjob." But preferably, Jaws.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Shaky cam is a tool that works in the right situation

    by chromedome

    I liked it's use very much in Cloverfield--it added the right sense of visceral intensity, confusion, and tension: it fit the tone and texture of the film.<p>In Quantum, I guess I didn't really see the problem in the use of the Shaky Cam itself--rather, the editing was choppy and added UNNECESSARY confusion that did not fit the tone and texture properly. Well Edited Shaky Cam might have worked okay, or not--but the lousy action scene editing overwhelms the use of shaky or steady cams.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Agree with you Harry, BUT...

    by richievanderlow

    The action scenese, while thrillingly paced, were almost wasted. I think its always bad when you can't tell what the hell is going on. All Forester needed to do was pull back a little bit and not rely on the handheld so much. They need Martin Campbell back to do this right.He's the mack-daddy Bond director. I agree that its so hard to compare CR with QoS, and I like them both in different ways, but I don't need or like action scenes that can't be followed.. scenes that makes me wonder what the hell is going on because its impossible to follow. I get they wanted the pacing to be crazy, but I don't think they needed every action sequence to be staged that way. A little less of a heavy hand would have gone a long way.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 2:16 p.m. CST

    QoS is The 1t Bond Film I've loved.


    And I hated Casino Royal. This one was pretty fookin' great, having done away with the sexist not-funny one-liners and having given us action scenes that are both faced-paced and watchable with the human eye. I knew I was going to like this one when I read the reviews saying it wasn't as good as Casino Royal or it was a good action movie, just not a James Bond movie. But I didn't expect to like it as much as I did. The dude DOES feel like someone who evolves into the suave Bond to me--unlike in Casino where he felt like a psychotic Frankenstein monster.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Sorry Harry, James Bond just nuked the fridge!

    by Second Try

    This movie sucks.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:46 p.m. CST

    James Bourne

    by Second Try

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Bond or Bourne?

    by TylerDurden3395

    To the fuckers who keep complaining that this is more like Bourne than Bond: <p> Similarities to Bourne: Shaky cam, jumping onto balconies, revenge. <p> Similarities to other Bond movies: <p> There’s the ill-fated chick that gets her entire body dipped in a valuable substance that’s directly lifted from Goldfinger. There’s the worldwide organization bent on global conquest that’s straight out of Thunderball. There’s the skydiving action sequence that’s similar to the one in Moonraker. There’s the Bond girl who’s out to avenge her family’s death that’s reminiscent of For Your Eyes Only. The scene involving a cargo plane will remind you of the one from The Living Daylights. Bond defying orders and going rogue is blatantly ripped off from Licence to Kill. The part when… look, all I’m saying that this flick is a straight up Bond movie through and through and is NOT a Bourne rehash.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Bond of the here and now translates to a

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Jason Bourne/Jack Bauer rip-off. Sorry the creators of the Craig Bond films are taking more inspiration from the bourne movies/24 than they are Fleming. I've read most of the Fleming novels, and save for Casino Royale and The Spy that Loved Me, they aren't as "gritty" as everyone who claims to have read them posits. The films of Dr. No, Goldfinger, From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Thunderball are actually quite close to the story and tone of the Fleming novels. The thing about Fleming is perfectly melding the fantastical spy elements with reality, not just showing a guy running around blowing out peoples' knee caps a la Jack Bauer.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Samuel Fulmer...

    by TylerDurden3395

    The Bond of here and now makes concessions to Bourne and Bauer sure, but at the end of the day, it's still Bond. (at least to me anyways)

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 6:31 p.m. CST

    If you felt the action scenes were well done

    by m_prevette

    ...then you just failed Movie Making 101; Be Sure The Audience Knows What The Hell Is Happening. Forster has NO F*CKING CLUE how to stage action and it shows. Wow. Stunningly bad. What wasn't bad however, was Mathias' bathing beauty hottie on the sundeck... damn she was the freaking hottest woman in a Bond movie in DECADES.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:40 p.m. CST

    That Damn Beer Glass!! Spoilers

    by HermesTrismestigus

    1. These bond movies are way too subtle in explaining the convoluted plot which makes the film seem plotless. EX; at the end he finds vespers boyfriend still alive and I was watching the whole scene going who is this guy what is this about now and slowly it dawned on me from the conversation about the washed up body and hair sample and algerian love knot but by the time I said oh the scene was over and didn't have an emotional impact. 2. The Bond gunbarrel sequence at the end of the film doesn't thematically make sense cuz the end of the film is a downer and its a slow fade to black as he lets go of Vespers memories and then Bam the gunbarrel sequence which is a pumpup didn't seem to go. 3. Lots of action I couldn't follow with shaky cam galore and closeups and more shaky cam galore, couldn't follow that boat chase just glad I sat in the back of the theatre. 4. Was the whole movie shot in the desert and if so where was willard whyte and his white pimp mobile I mean his white moon buggy.? 5. The girl covered in oil and moonraker parachute jump seemed out of place with the realistic approach even though its a plot with spectre like organization Quantum. And what was with the closups of that damn glass of Beer was the it poisoned? Was a member of Quantum hiding in it? The aquifer reveal how underwhelming. Could he have not blown it and got some of those thirsty 3rd world folks some water, hell and drowned Dominic. 6. The music was a big problem, shitty song with shitty opening titles and shitty action score. No theme no melody. 7. There is no fucking humor in this film...none.....why is the bond theme not used throughout man that score was crap and David Arnold is usually good. 8. Final opinion I'll have to see it back to back with casino royale as one 4 hour bond movie to see if I change my verdict. 10. Next time out, Vodka Martini shaken not stirred, a little humor but not California girls while snowboarding or a pigeon doing a double take. Also a really evil bad guy with a super creepy henchman. Bond fucking at least 3 women. Gunbarrel opening plus naked ladies dancing and a good song. Lots of classiness and good dialogue broken up with bad ass action sequences I can follow, like they did in goldeneye and casino royale and him saying the name is bond...james bond. Also this film felt PG and kinda pussy, the fight scenes were cool and the opera sequence was great even though it all flew by. I guess my problem was it didn't feel like a Bond movie even though its world domination by mysterious organization is totally Bond. I'll have to give it a week to watch again.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Damn Beer No Spoilers

    by HermesTrismestigus

    oops 9. That damn beer glass again, I'm drinking a beer just thinking about, or was it product placement.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 7:49 p.m. CST

    That Frikkin Beer glass

    by HermesTrismestigus

    I guess my memories of watching Bond as a kid is that the early ones all had a creepy element to them, I loved that, also this the cheapest looking Bond since Licence to Kill. Whew, damn Beer Glass.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Shaky Cam

    by The Funketeer

    The shaky came doesn't bother me too much during the action scenes. When done right (and I think it was for the most part in QofS) it gives the scenes a more frantic feel. It's when the directors like Greengrass keep it going for dramatic scenes that bugs me. I should have to work so hard to watch 2 people talking.

  • Nov. 17, 2008, 10:04 p.m. CST

    Garth's review

    by Maniaq

    I kinda mostly agree with it and I'm glad he mentions the problems during production because that goes a long way towards explaining some of the issues with the final product (I'm hoping more and more for an alternative cut!) - but I don't completely agree with him. <p> It's true some of the plot elements were not necessarily presented in a particularly interesting way, that doesn't make them in an of themselves uninteresting. I thought the plot was quite interesting, just... rushed. <p> I agree scenes like the deaths of Mathis and Fields were rushed for the sake of getting on with the ass-kicking - and that sacrificed the poignancy of those moments. Craig did his best to get it across that those deaths really bothered him. Fields, especially, he made a point to M of making sure her bravery was duly noted - and when he despatched Mathis' killer in the end there - talk about blink and you miss! The "mutual friend" line - that was worse than a bloody one liner! <p> I've said it before - all the stuff to make this a truly great film are there, I don't think anything needs to be reshot, it just needs to be cut PROPERLY

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 12:28 a.m. CST

    LOVED IT..but

    by StrokerX

    i can see how the editing would bug some people...Bond > Bourne

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:03 a.m. CST

    One question that has bugged me since this film went into produc

    by emeraldboy

    is why the rush? one thoery maybe, Forster handed over his final cut of the movie and they hated it tossed back to him and said do it again. which he did and they still hated it. so EON' patience snapped, they took the film off him hired two editors. locked forster out of editing booth. patched the film together and dumped QOS into cinemas. Forster has been gagged so to avoid a similar situation to babylon AD.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 6:54 a.m. CST

    Craig was great!

    by I AM ROCKO

    The film itself was very average, even though it had some amazing pieces (the opera sequence). Why no gunbarrel at the start, having at the end just seemed to be because they needed to make the end scene have more impact. Why no use of the James Bond theme until the very end? The action was well staged but over edited, I mean really why to go to so much effort of staging and seting up an action scene and the cutting the fuck out of it...I have seen some high res stills of the car chase, and the attention to detail on the Aston Martin with the bullet holes along the side is amazing. It passed me by when watching though...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:14 a.m. CST

    There is also a slow fade before..

    by emeraldboy

    the opening credits roll. I didnt mind cg credits on ANy of brosnans movies and on CR either cause they fitted theme of the movies.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:25 a.m. CST


    by I AM ROCKO

    ...why did not Bond deny killing that special forces henchman? M said that he shot and then dropped him from a building, when all Bond did was clearly drop him...maybe I missed something,yes I'm splitting hairs and would let that kind of stuff go in fantasy fault for having my hopes too high after CR...I still enjoyed the film, just wanted more

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 7:47 a.m. CST


    by Maniaq

    emeraldboy I've been saying all along, they've locked the director out of the editing booth and cut the film in the completely opposite way to what he had intended when shooting it - just like Lucas did *initially* with his first cut of Empire, before coming to his senses and allowing the film to be cut properly - more slowly paced, with beats and pauses to highlight the emotional nuances and character development in the scenes. <p> ROCKO, it kind of bothered me at first that he didn't take the time to deny killing those people, but then I thought well.. he's got a license to kill so what does it matter if he gets the blame or not?

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:13 a.m. CST


    by I AM ROCKO are probably right, Bond gives the impression that M and Co have already made up their mind and that if he comes across as even more dangerous then that is a good thing as he is fed up with things not getting done. I can also believe that they locked MF out of the editing room...even some of the conversation scenes the cutting was very abrubt and almost jarring. I need to watch it again, I did enjoy but it was all too much. Perhaps this Bond film will grow on me on DVD/TV repeat viewings. I still don't get the gun barrell at the be honest the opening panning shot across the lake, starting without the gun barrell and music reminded me of the opening of Never Say Never Again (shudder)

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Dark Horizons review is 100% Dead Right:

    by FleshMachine

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:43 a.m. CST

    ....anyone else think...

    by KeithL

    the action scenes were a bit of a mess, particularly the first couple. The smash-cut 1/2 second editing makes it impossible to discern what the hell is going on half the time. The cross cutting between the horserace and the chase scene was unnecessary and distracting, although the same tactic worked well in the opera scene. This movie didn't need both. What made Casino great and Quantum OK was the difference in how they shot the action - Casino was hands-down better filmmaking in that regard. I still enjoyed the movie, but FUCK ME is it really necessary to have a cut every second in an action sequence? Maybe the editor was paid by the slice or something. One last thing Mr. Forster, when there's a fight/chase going on, it's OK to bakc the fuck up so we can have some sense of what's going on....Jesus, if I saw another flash of a hand and blur of a sleeve I would've shit myself. Loved Craig, loved Wright.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Quality of film hurt by rush of the WGA strike

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I have a feeling we're going to be in for a lot of this WGA strike rush crap for the next year or so. Can anyone say GI JOE????

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Brosnan's "Goldeneye" was the shit.

    by tempurasan

    It is the epitome of the cinematic Bond. It has all of cinematic Bond's strengths and Weaknesses. When it triumphs it reaches genius level and when it fails, it fails spectacularly. Is it the best Bond film? No, that belongs to From Russia With Love. <p> I don't care for the new Bond so much. I enjoyed Casino Royale, but Quantum bored me to tears. It felt long for a short film, and the final face off with Dominic Greene was about as lame as the Brosnan facing off that dude that can't feel pain in the submarine in that one Bond film I don't even remember the name for. All the sudden a "hopped up green turd" (as Mori eloquently put it) gives Bond a run for his money, when throughout the film Bond has pretty much killed everyone he comes across. There is something inherently boring about having a genius mastermind to do hand to hand combat with Bond, who in this film is essentially a terminator. <p> As for the editing. I thought it was done well enough. It was fast, but I could tell what was going on. It's hardly "Impressionistic" as Harry puts it, it's just cut fast to try to give it a sense of energy. I prefer a more well thought out approach to editing, but it wasn't too bad here. But Harry, I want you to remember defending quick editing here. If you ever criticize Paul W.S. Anderson's editing work (same concept there), kindly call yourself a hypocrite.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Qos Box office take has now fallen

    by emeraldboy

    from 27 million on fri, sat 25 million, sun 17 million. Word of mouth. final weekend tally was 67 million. It is still the highest grossing bond film ever.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:48 p.m. CST


    by Come_ON

    He said the opening scene had nothing to do with the rest of the movie and was filled with CGI. Both lies.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 3:58 p.m. CST


    by tempurasan

    The opening has a connection with the story, but really doesn't affect the story. The story isn't about Mr. White, it's about Dominic Greene. And while it isn't filled with CGi, it does cut very quickly and give the impressions that a lot of it was for special effects purposes. I think Ebert is right in reviewing the film, and it is definitely one of the weaker entries of the series. Not horrible or Die Another Day bad, just not very good.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:06 p.m. CST

    The Ebster

    by Come_ON

    said the opening scene was "obviously composed of incomprehensible CGI" Just because it was too quickly edited doesn't mean it was filled with CG. And he said they were keeping with tradition by not having the opening scene connect with the rest of the movie when really they were completely breaking with tradition by having this film pick up only a few minutes after With Cheese.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:17 p.m. CST


    by tempurasan

    There is no doubt that this film breaks the Bond tradition. No gun barrel at the very beginning, no Q, no Money Penny, no fancy gadgets. Ebert surely recognized this, and he spent most of his review saying so. I think his problem with the intro is less about how it was shot, but what it means to Bond films in general. He states that Bond is an attitude, and not an action hero. Maybe that's why i was so bored. He just sorta became like a Terminator. Just ruthless killing, very little attitude. That's boring for me. I don't want a cartoony Bond, but I don't want the ruthless emotionless Bond either. And the ending set piece is just silly and boring, not to mention lazy writing. Ebert was just trying to send the point home. Plus, the guy writes like 7 reviews a week. He's old and battling cancer. So we can forgive him a few minute details. At least he captured the spirit of the film.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Bond as a ruthless killing machine

    by tempurasan

    Ebert doesn't like the notion of Bond being an action hero here. He likes the more "matured" Bond, if you can ever call him that. Though, perhaps that was the point here. That Craig's Bond is still new and unrefined, and still lives for the kill. He hasn't killed enough to find it a chore, that he still finds pleasure in killing these dudes. Since this is a direct continuation of the first film, we are witnessing some of Bond's first kills, and maybe the adrenaline of killing somebody is still there, the novelty (how horrible that killing is a novelty) still hasn't worn off. He still finds running on the rooftops chasing down a dude exciting, he still delights in an airplane chase. Finding himself in a dangerous situation, I guess the difference is Connery's Bond would go "oh brother..." and Craig's Bond would go "Oh Boy!!!" I guess as he gets more experienced, Bond would start to reach the point of diminishing returns when it comes to killing and begins to find delight in the finer things in life. I guess by the time we get to the point of Roger Moore's Bond, which is basically the final evolution of Bond, he would much rather wear a nice tux, screws all the women, drink great martinis and being clever with sex metaphors than to kill Another Henchman. He's still efficient at killing, in fact moreso than he ever has, but no longer finds it thrilling or particularly pleasurable. He'd much rather sit him down and tell him dirty jokes and his life story. lol... sorry for the tanget, but If you think of it like that, I guess it makes sense. I don't like that notion of a crazy adrenaline junkie Bond, but I have to admit it makes sense.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 8:59 p.m. CST

    tempura - yes Bond is definitely still developing here

    by Maniaq

    I think that was the point of having Mathis, who was sort of like a mentor in a way. He warned him it would become more difficult to tell the good guys apart from the bad guys in future and he started (possibly for the first time) to actually regret the deaths he was responsible for, when Mathis died... <p> This brings him a step closer to Fleming's Bond than any of the previous incarnations, including Timothy Dalton's version - who he's been compared to a few times. Actually Lazenby comes close at the end of OHMSS - but then the movie ends and we never see him again...

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 10:54 p.m. CST

    EBERT is exactly right.

    by Metropolis

    "Why is he in Bolivia? In pursuit of a global villain, whose name is not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Drax or Le Chiffre, but ... Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). What is Dominic's demented scheme to control the globe? As a start, the fiend desires to corner the water supply of ... Bolivia. Ohooo! Nooo!" For the entire film, the audience was bored. Nothing special to give you that "excited I'm seeing a Bond film" feeling. I'm really disappointed that Harry LOVES it SO much. He must of had some seriously good popcorn.

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:24 p.m. CST


    by the milf lover

    Harry got "the new trailers for STAR TREK, WATCHMEN or THE SPIRIT that we saw" <p> crap, what I got was YES MAN, SEVEN POUNDS and the first DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL one... and Quantum was very underwhelming, maybe I should've gone to see Role Models instead

  • Nov. 18, 2008, 11:42 p.m. CST

    He's in Bolivia because - well, it's complicated...

    by Maniaq

    if you want simple, this is obviously not the franchise for you? <p> Let me ask you this - why was Bond in Jamaica in Dr No? <p> Why Turkey in From Russia With Love? <p> Why the Bahamas in Thunderball? <p> The Alps in OHMSS? <p> The Caribbean in Live and Let Die? <p> ...or any of the other places he visits "in pursuit of a global villain" - it's because that's where the clues lead him. He also spends a bit of time in Italy and in Austria, too. <p> The water thing is interesting because of the misdirection. Like a skilled magician, Greene has got everyone looking in one direction and not paying any attention to the man behind the curtain. <p> How much do you pay for a litre (gallon?) of petrol? How about the same amount of water? What would hurt more - if the price of petrol was doubled, or the price of water? <p> You're probably thinking petrol, but think again - which do you use more of? Consider all the things on your supermarket shelf that would also be affected if the water supply suddenly became twice as expensive - it's not just the fresh fruit and vegetables, it's your juices and soft drinks, meat and livestock would be affected - hell, even CANNED food contains mostly water! <p> You understand it's not JUST Bolivia they are doing this to (from their meeting in Austria) - that's just where they happen to be doing it when Bond becomes interested in them...

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 2:59 a.m. CST


    by Prossor

    we're fucked if they get to that!

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 4:54 a.m. CST

    Camera man had advanced parkinsons disease!

    by NeilF

    I thought the camera work/direction of the action scenes was the worst I've ever witnessed on the big screen.<br> <br> Car chase - Wasted<br> Roof chase - Wasted<br> Boat chase - Wasted<br> <br> Absolutely over the top, super shakey, quick editing rubbish!<br> <br> All the action scenes were 'lost' because of it!<br> <br> The script was a little shakey too, but not in the same diabolical league as the cinematography!<br> <br> Terrible! 6/10

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Does anyone read this far?

    by jamestewart007

    I'm a big Bond fan. I've read all the books and seen all the movies more than a few times, and i loved all the little things in this film. The card with "Universal Exports" and how the taxi driver knew where the CIA office was. I'm pretty sure that the phone conversation was something straight out of a novel. And the omage paid to the best Bond movie with the girl painted in black gold! (oil) All the nolstagia aside, I thought this film was great. i was dreading it when the director said "he put the humor" back in Bond. And all I could think of was Craig trying to act like Moore. But they kept true to the character, and his humor was cruel. "He was a dead end", and giving the guy who hoarded all the water a can of motor oil to quench his thirst in the desert he created. The story moved along pretty quick. And I love that it is open ended. I want to see the rise and fall of 007 as it is depicted in the novels. The next one should have the same Felix, and keep as much continuation as possible. Maybe have that Sean Connery guy recognize him in an Airport in Nevada, and ask him a favour that leads him towards another member of Quantum. And just for shits and gigles, it would be kind of cool to see john Clease play the head of Quantum. aka "Q". I think he could play the part fairly well.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 10:24 a.m. CST


    by jamestewart007

    By "Sean Connery guy", I mean there is guy who looks like a pansy version of Sean Connery in Casino Royal, he makes his first appearance shortly after LeChifre asks Bond what his real name is because he is "confused"

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 6:02 p.m. CST

    I Have No Idea....

    by Blitz anyone can hate on this film. Then again, there are so many films I don't get how people can hate on so bad. Sometimes I think fans and critics can be to damn picky for a bunch of people who don't actually make movies. This new Bond Kicked so much ass, right after seeing it me and my friend went down the list, Car Chase, Boat Chase, Plain chase...really, what are people pissing about?

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 6:45 p.m. CST


    by emeraldboy

    I think that Casino Royale had so many great things in it. Craig is a great bond. that i agree with 100%. I admire anyone who has the guts to try and do his own stunts. and on that level craig succeeds. immeasurably. However eon rushed this film into theatres. buthcering the film as they. Everything suffered as a result. You can blame the writers strike but Eon Must take full share of thier responsibility for the terrible way they made this movie.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 7:55 p.m. CST

    It sucked

    by Dazzler69

    Story was not straight forward enough. No gadgets, no jokes. Cut to end of fuk scene. Bad editing in fight scenes. I did not care about anybody in the movie. This is NOT Bond, James Bond. Oh yeah no catchphrases. Bond always had comedy to get through things to cope. Nothing like that here.

  • Nov. 19, 2008, 8:26 p.m. CST


    by Drath

    Fleming thought Sean Connery looked too much like a truck driver to play Bond. Hear that? Connery was too rugged. You can't tell me Craig is less so. I don't think Fleming was realistic, I don't think his vision of what Bond should look like at all fits with what we need now in an action hero of the espionage world or like what Bond should look like. In fairness, Craig has a far better look for a spy against the Russians since he has such obvious Russian/Eastern European features. I think Craig is closer to how Bond should look (and be even), but I stand firm that he doesn't look like Bond the way Fleming saw him. Moore's dapper non-thug English looks are closer to what he seemed to have in mind. Agree or not, fine, but don't let the love for Craig in the role rewrite history. He's not Fleming's Bond. Moore wasn't either though, just to be clear.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Fleming's Bond

    by TengoLow

    Fleming described Bond as looking like musician Hoagy Carmichael. He also favoured casting Cary Grant or David Niven for the movies, whoever the most commercial was. Neither they, nor Connery, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan look anything like Hoagy Carmichael. Craig comes closest than any of them apart from the blond hair. What the writers have done in CASINO and QUANTUM was to update the Bond from the novels to the 21st Century. Instead of Naval Intelligence with the rank of Commander, this Bond is a former Special Forces soldier, which explains his fight and weapons training. They've updated the prickly relationship with M, where Bond regarded the original as a father figure, this M has a den mother relationship with Bond, and there are hints she's going to start using him as her personal bulldog while under the guise of his "going rogue" to get results so she can disavow him if he's caught or killed. They've even introduced Bill Tanner from the novels as M's No. 2 in QUANTUM. The plot where Bond is chasing a lead on the organisation and stumbling on a corrupt industrialist with an ambitious and plausible scheme, helping a women out for revenge along the way, is exactly the type of plot Fleming wrote all the time. This is the closest to Fleming the movies have gotten in decades.

  • Nov. 20, 2008, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Loved Bond - HATED the direction and editing

    by Kraaken

    First, Marc Forster was a horrible choice to direct this movie. The action scenes played like an MTV video on crack. There had to be about six close-up, shaky-cam cuts for every five seconds of frenetic action. And shit was thrown in those cuts that was indeciferable or irrelevant to the action. Right from the wtf was that car chase that began the film, I knew I was in for more visual torture than James Bond himself. It was understood that this was the new realistic Bond seeking revenge for Vesper's death, and I knew it would be gritty, like Casino Royale. But that film was a masterpiece compared to this one. It is my sincere hope that in the next film, they are able to blend the old suave Bond, with his gagetry and sense of humor with the new Bond's grit and kick-ass violence. This film sure ain't it. Ebert was right on.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 1:36 a.m. CST

    Camerawork done by Michael J Fox

    by Prossor

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 2:29 a.m. CST

    I HATED the action editing...

    by Kirbymanly

    Loved Craig, loved the acting, thought the story was alllllmost there... but it's the cuts in the action scenes that rip the film to shreds. What the fuck was happening?!!!! How can anyone in their right mind say they KNOW, without a doubt, what happened bit by bit in those action sequences?! I hope there's a new cut for the DVD where they strap the editors to a chair and whack their balls with a triton.

  • Nov. 21, 2008, 4:30 a.m. CST

    Audiences say...

    by emeraldboy

    "boring cinematic snoozefest..zzzzz". Filmakers say ok we wont give them, that so studios invented fast cut editing. because audiences have short attention spans. Sorry to bring this up again. But both Hulk films are good example. Audiences thought that Ang Lee's version was a boring snooze fest. so The incredible hulk was a banner on the run movie. light on story, empty on character development, Strong on speedy effects as well as action. The incredible Hulk experiment blew up in the faces Universal. to the point where they have decided not to make anymore.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 3:25 a.m. CST

    loved it

    by dkurina73

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 3:27 a.m. CST

    Loved It

    by dkurina73

    As a Bond aficionado, I must say I loved QOS, and can not wait for Barbara and Michael to continue the series soon.....

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 3:29 a.m. CST

    Amen Tengo

    by dkurina73

    And Tengolaw------you have it down completely....

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:35 a.m. CST

    Emeraldboy here with some news and I am suprised that this site.

    by emeraldboy

    has not annoucned this. Universal has just bought the Bourne franchise from the ludlum estate. that means that Universal has juat said Eon has bond. We have bourne. Let the fight begin. Bourne number 4 is in development with greengrass in the chair. calling the shots. and shaking the cam. Damon breaking taking names and kicking ass. though I liked what doug liman did the first time round.

  • Nov. 22, 2008, 7:39 a.m. CST

    I hope that in the future.. things dont deteriorate..

    by emeraldboy

    into an "only true bond fans will like this" movie. I have been going to bond films since childhood. I didnt like this film at all.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 1:38 a.m. CST

    ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM (Guess what's happening?!)

    by FilmFan311

    BRING MARTIN CAMPBELL BACK RIGHT FUCKING NOW! Jesus Christ! Just came from a double bill of ROLE MODELS and QOS. The cinematography and editing in QOS was beyond SHIT! The Action was so fucking horribly shot and edited that I couldn't believe what I was witnessing (especially after declaring CASINO ROYALE My Favorite Bond Movie AND Favorite BOND Actor.) The random shot of pussy woke me up momentarily, but the film as a whole is ugly, uninspired and continually ZOOMING ZOOMING ZOOMING RIGHT IN YOUR FACE. I often said, "PULL THE FUCKING CAMERA BACK SO I CAN TRY TO SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING." QOS was a moderately entertaining mess that warrants the instant firing of the hack director, cocaine sniffing editor and shitty production team. There might have been a good film intended, but the crew behind the camera all deserve to return to the set of KNIGHT RIDER or wherever the fuck they came from. ROLE MODELS turned out to be a fun surprise that had me laughing before the debacle of shit that QOS is and will always be.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 3:55 p.m. CST

    good movie

    by chipps

    i liked the brosnan one's though. they were 90s cinisim and tongue in cheek. then some idiot crashed into the twin towers and spun the full circle and came back to pragmatic. This movie had some problems, it is a pet hate of mine when supposedly proffessional killers do lengthy bursts from automatic weapons. small bursts please. where did the money come from? he was living large. he should have been a pretty easy shot at the start (but maybe this is where the bursts came in). I liked that he didn't sleep with the real bond girl in this movie. I loved the fight scenes. such brutality. often in cinema it seems as if rugged characters are being written by, acted by and directed by pussies. this was not the case in this movie. the fights were spot on. is there a british embassy in boliva? the country seems too small for one. on the whole the opening song and the credits were good (didn't blow me away) anyway, some problems, but overall a really good movie.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 3:57 p.m. CST

    head geek

    by chipps

    i agree that it is a good rendering of the flemming bond, but... nothing is said about it, but this bond seems working class to me, and the flemming bond was not. i still like it but i still say i just get this feeling that he is not the brutal but genteel bond of flemming. maybe this comes latter, as he starts to enjoy the finer things in life. like quail eggs.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 8:59 p.m. CST


    by TengoLow

    Well-spotted on the class subtext in New Bond. In both accent and body language, Craig more than hints at working class origins, so his Bond has an edge of class warfare and resentment as he sneaks, then crashes through all those places where privileged people play, like a missile. That subtext is there the opera house shootout.

  • Nov. 23, 2008, 9:11 p.m. CST

    By the way Harry.....

    by Kraaken

    A Great Film? What movie were you watching? After sitting through the nausea of that horrible editing, I cannot believe for a moment that you are serious in saying that this movie was great. Are you a shill for the studio or what? I call bullshit on this one, Harry. Come clean with us.

  • Nov. 24, 2008, 4:46 a.m. CST

    No, Harry, it's not good. At all.

    by Drunken Rage

    Terrible script, awful editing, scenes/locations that add nothing (Haiti, for example, or the oddly stylized "Tosca" set piece), odd deus ex machina devices (fuel cells-?- in the hotel), etc. This was a very, very bad movie. Was Craig good? Yes, he was fine. Was it a good movie? Absolutely not.

  • Nov. 24, 2008, 8:05 p.m. CST

    I didn't really like it.

    by Power_Girl

    Casino Royal is still the only great Bond film... Quantum is as good as any Conery Bond flick. <p> James Bond is Assholes in general.

  • Nov. 24, 2008, 8:12 p.m. CST

    I'm waiting for the Fan Edit were all the...

    by Power_Girl

    Useless Action set pieces filmed with dizzy cam are edited out and be get a twenty minuet film.

  • Nov. 25, 2008, 6:38 a.m. CST

    actually I liked it better on second viewing

    by Maniaq

    I guess maybe I knew where to expect the fast cuts and I already had an idea what was going on so I actually *GOT* what was happening in those action scenes. <p> such a shame tho - the director obviously went to a lot of trouble to set up those set pieces and they just whizz on by... <p> some things I didn't notice first time- <p> * when M calls Bean (Felix's CIA boss) he's actually on that plane Bond is looking at, when he says no we have no interest in Greene! <p> * when Bond snatches Camille from the boat, she actually had the gun out and was ready to shoot the General <p> * does Bond actually walk ON STAGE when he walks away from Tosca - how does he NOT spot White from that angle? <p> * in the beginning White was shot when he was brought in, presumably had the bullet removed, and then was promptly shot again (I think) by his own man Mitchell! <p> * Fleming's Bond (like Fleming himself) favours short sleeved shirts but the shirt he picks from Slate's (the archaeologist) wardrobe is long sleeve - and he's in Haiti! <p> * was Mathis not with the police chief, talking to Fields when she excused herself to trip over the henchman with the bad wig - how did he end up in Bond's car moments later - ALL BEATEN UP - how long did it take Bond to walk out the door exactly? <p> * every single character in the movie has a Sony-Ericsson phone!

  • Nov. 26, 2008, 10 p.m. CST

    Hey Mori

    by Antz

    Normally the two reviewers I agree with the most are you and Garth over at Dark Horizons, so I was most interested to see who I agreed with when I saw the film today given you have reviews at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Alas this time, I 100% agree with Garth. The film sucked big time as a Bond film, the action, editing and cinematography was pitiful. The story was just OK.

  • Nov. 27, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Bond is no longer relevant

    by Mr. Charmand Grimloch

    and had the producers really wanted to be creative, they would have done a REAL reboot, which would be to have the series "begin" again, back in the mid 50's, during the Cold War era, with the emphasis on accuracy, and espionage. Obviously though, that would not appeal as immediately to the ADD generation that dominates sites such as this. Thus, the rest of us have to endure a perfectly good actor in Craig, being forced to run around in these bloated turds masquerading as James Bond films. Of course there is improvement over the Brosnan fiasco where even the actor playing Bond was more like a runway queen than a dangerous British agent. The series hasn't seen a good film since Dalton left (or more likely was forced out), and even with his great quality the truth is that the series was in the wrong hands as soon as Barbara Broccoli began getting involved. Oh, and did I mention that the new Star Trek film looks like shit?

  • Nov. 27, 2008, 10:48 p.m. CST

    saying QoS is crap, irrelevant or boring

    by Amy Chasing

    is as inaccurate as saying it's great, a masterpiece or perfect. <P> It was a good film until the scene with Fields in oil. From that moment it was consistently kick-arse to the end.

  • Nov. 28, 2008, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Despite the opera scene which was the best scene...

    by emeraldboy

    in the film. drop the word kick from the words kick-arse. and you are left with a perfect description of the film. arse. little harsh that. the cinematography was stunning in it. but the movie in terms of its story was arse. I Still have no idea why the gun barrell sequence was left to the end. that is one of the most iconic parts of bond. the competiion between Eon and universal is going to more fierce. now that universal has bought the bourne franchise from the ludlum estate.

  • Nov. 28, 2008, 9:08 a.m. CST

    the moralistic part of it

    by chipps

    was tacted on and will date. it was really a pathetic attempt by Hollywood to be relevent. the rest of it will endure as a kick ass film. it was an excellent movie, but it morals (control the water control the country) are paper thin. And i live under water rationing (aussie)

  • Nov. 28, 2008, 11:51 a.m. CST

    We have the greens in govt.

    by emeraldboy

    so I am pre-disposed to loathing them. We, like other countries in europe know now what it is like to have the greens govt and the sooner they return to political oblivion the better. if you want a taste what I am talking about. logon on to and listen to the interview between Pat Kenny and senator Ciarian Cuffe. absolutely hilarious. the best radio interview since JOe Jacob and Marian Finuncane about a nuclear disaster. that was a couple of years ago.

  • Nov. 30, 2008, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Right on Harry!

    by dieanotherday

    This is one of the best james bond films every ... if not the best!!! loved it!!!

  • Nov. 30, 2008, 5:14 p.m. CST

    Marc Forster is to action sequences as

    by ZoeFan

    George Lucas is to writing dialog. Who thought a guy who's known for directing dialog/story driven movies would be a good match for the Bond Franchise? Completely Mind Bottling. Like all your thoughts are trapped in a bottle hence making you go crazy. Something like that.

  • Nov. 30, 2008, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Directors for the next Bond

    by ZoeFan

    Given the direction of the franchise may I suggest: Roger Donaldson (No Way Out, Cocktail, The Getaway, Thirteen Days and The Bank Job), Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, Stardust and Kick Ass) or Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) as possible replacements for Mr. Forster.

  • Dec. 10, 2008, 2:59 a.m. CST

    Bourne Action sequences

    by Jesson

    Am I the only one who hates the Bourne-style directed action sequences (handheld, shaky, fast cutting bullshit)??? It gives me a fucking headache... Still loved both Craig Bond movies though!

  • Dec. 10, 2008, 3:08 a.m. CST

    Bourne Action sequences

    by Jesson

    Having read some more on this Talk Back I guess not.... For once listen up Hollywood!

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 10:18 p.m. CST

    Finally saw QoS today aannnnnddddd.....

    by thebearovingian

    I really liked it. Dare I say more than Casino Royale? The action is great and plentiful. Bond IS Superman in this. It's not realistic AT ALL but it's fun as hell. I can understand the complaints about the superfast edits in the beginning. Difficult to follow but not the deal breaker I expected from reading the TBs. It did not seem too short to me, either. It kicked ass.

  • Dec. 19, 2008, 10:17 a.m. CST

    I loved it.

    by Smashing

    I have seen it 4 times now and each viewing it gets better and better, the action sequences become clearer like in Transformers with subsequent viewings and to a film fan that has to be a good thing, seeing more with new viewings is a treat to me.<P>I think QoS is one of my favourite Bond films and I love its art house wannabe nature, the opening car chase is breathtaking, the Opera scene is pure Fleming and I agree that this film is closer to one of his books than any film has been since Tim Dalton, 9 out of 10 from me.

  • Dec. 23, 2008, 8:03 a.m. CST

    It's a great movie, oscar worthy script

    by theplant

  • Feb. 8, 2009, 3:34 p.m. CST


    by theplant

    fuckin ass