|Page 1 of 121:||          |
|Index||1207 reviews in total|
This film is about James Bond cracking down a multi-national
corporation that works with dictators to get a share of precious
"Quantum Of Solace" has an impressive opening sequence. It has high speed car chases with lots of collision and gunshots. The ultra short scenes (all under one second each) and the shaky camera gives urgency and thrill, but it is so hard to actually work out what is happening.
There is a lot of action and adrenaline in the film, but the plot seems not to have a focus. Nor does it make sense either, as it feels like an all-action-no-information film. All Bond does is to run around the globe after his target, and viewers are left to wonder how he made it. I don't find myself caring for the plot or the characters. I don't know why this happens, but something is not right with the film and I don't know what.
This is my first review in IMDb (my first port-of-call for movie
opinions) and unfortunately it's simply a reaction to what has been,
this morning, a disappointing experience.
Unlike Casino Royale, which was as direct as a bullet from a gun, QoS spends a sizeable chunk of it's running time meandering aimlessly.
Firstly though, the intro car chase is in the style of an agitated, edit-obsessed director which means the entire scene is viewed in short random bursts from a multitude of angles - Fine, if that's your bag.
What follows is a series of action set pieces which are at turns exciting, manic and messy, but after which the film becomes flat and a little direction-less. That's not to say that there is little in the way of bullets and babes but the simple facts are that the set pieces are really not very exciting, and worse still the characters are pretty bland, in comparison to those in Casino Royale.
You'll struggle to think of a main bond villain that is less interesting than Dominic Greene, and agent Fields is utterly pointless in every aspect other than brief eye-candy.
As is mentioned in other reviews it is Judy Dench and Daniel Craig that keep this movie from leaving the tracks entirely but it doesn't bode well for future outings if this is to be the new template.
In short Casino Royale rejuvenated the franchise but Quantum Of Solace has gone some way to spoiling it's success.
The theme song isn't too good either, and just like the film it gets a tad messy at times. Get Chris Cornell back for the next one.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After the critically acclaimed and much successful 'Casino Royale' I
had hopes that 'Quantum of Solace' could rival this years best movie so
far: 'The Dark Knight'. Well... it doesn't even come close.
There use to be a time when Bond movies where trendsetting...
I remember when director Doug Liman some time ago said he wanted to make "Bond for a new generation" - so he dug up Jason Bourne. Several received Oscars and years later, we now have the Bond franchise mimicking the Bourne franchise instead. How ironic. If you are a Bond fan like me, and - when the endcredits roll - think to yourself that the movie you just saw had more in common with the last two Bourne-movies, than the first 21 Bond-movies, then you know there's a problem!
On paper Quantum of Solace may be a Bond movie. But many of those things that people use to associate with Bond movies are gone. Some for no obvious purpose or reason.
It wasn't enough for them to take away Moneypenny, Q, the gadgets, the humor and witticism, his "shaken, not stirred", the line "my name is Bond, James Bond." They even ditched the famous opening gunbarrel-sequence, and you won't hear the James Bond theme right until the very end (as in Casino Royale which - besides being 40 minutes longer - "felt" more like a Bond movie)
And what's up with this new style of filming and editing?
Well, they hired the editor, the stuntteam and 2nd unit director of... yes, you guessed it - the Bourne movies. So do not under any circumstance buy tickets for the first 10 rows - you will regret it. I was sitting in the 15th row at an advance fan-screening and even there I would be reaching for my seasickness-pills if I had any.
Because with this annoying new MTV-style editing (which is suppose to add "realism") known from the Bourne-movies with shaking hand-held cameras in which you have a hard time following what really is happening on screen, especially in a crowded surrounding, you will be better off sitting as far back as possible in the theatre. Luckily this style is - unlike Bourne 2 and 3 - not incorporated into every single scene in Quantum of Solace. Far from it. But it's there, and it's very annoying, in my opinion. It actually ruined much of the first two action set-pieces for me, and by then we were only 30 minutes into the movie.
Quantum of Solace is very fastpaced, like a Bourne/Bond-movie should be. We jump from location to location, actionsequence to actionsequence. It can be very confusing watching Bond on a rampage still dealing with "personal issues" (like Bourne). Bourne Ultimatum had a rooftop-chase. So does Quantum of Solace. Bourne Ultimatum had a fistfight in a small cluttered apartment filmed the way I mentioned earlier. Well, so does Quantum of Solace. How original!
It's like they took some of the best parts of the two last Bournemovies and said "let's do almost the exact same thing and add something more, like letting him fly a plane." So Bond does that, in what I think is the second-best part of the movie. The best part for me, was oddly enough not an actionsequence, but when Bond for once does some real spywork on a floating operastage accompanied by a great music score. Very Bondian.
For this, for Dennis Gassners terrific production design, for David Arnolds usual great score and for Craigs cool performance, I give it six stars.
A note to the producers of the Bond movies: Now that you played around with Bourne, can we have 007 back for Bond 23, please?
This film could have been so good, but Marc Forster's clichéd and
ham-fisted direction completely ruined it for me. To be fair, his
handling of the quieter moments between the action was adequate, but he
clearly has no grasp of how direct action sequences, which are clearly
central to any good Bond. I'm afraid the 'shake the camera and cut at
least once a second' school of action direction doesn't really cut it.
It's tragic really, as the setup and the stunts for the sequences looked pretty promising, but you had to look pretty hard to tell once Mr. Forster's hopeless direction kicked in. Such a waste.
I think I'll hold out for the special edition DVD - you know - the non-directors cut!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'll admit that I went into Quantum of Solace more or less dreading a
repeat of the Licence To Kill debacle. All the danger signs were there
- a rushed script because of a writers' strike, threats of Bond going
rogue again plus the problem that great Bond films are usually followed
by naff ones. The short running time wasn't encouraging, nor the bigger
budget and promise of more action.
Well, this isn't one of the great Bond films, and Casino Royale set the bar far too high for it to compete. But it's certainly not a disappointment if you go in aware of that, and more gratifyingly, the similarities to LTK are superficial. Where Casino Royale was like making love all night long, this is more of a gratifyingly frenzied *beep* of a film. The running time isn't a problem because, like From Russia With Love, this is a pared down machine with no fat to trim away, throwing out all the overused touchstones to get down to business. From a plot point of view there's maybe a little too much one corpse leading to the next plot point in the first third, but the film wisely ditches that approach early.
Dan Bradley's action scenes are thankfully not as ineptly over-edited and incoherent as in Paul Greengrass' films, but aren't as impressive as Gary Powell's work on CR. There are moments of familiarity a motorbike sequence borrows from the unimpressively shot harbour scene in Jackie Chan's The Protector, but without the lethargic pacing, while an aerial dogfight owes a lot to a famously rejected stunt originally intended for the opening of GoldenEye and the opening car chase through heavy traffic could have benefited from not trying quite so hard. But within them there are moments of stylisation that few other Bonds have attempted and failed at but which are far more successful here, most notably an impressive opera sequence that could have done with a few more shots to clarify the odd mechanical detail (something other parts of the film could benefit from). It's also surprisingly vicious - for perhaps the first time in a Bond film, innocent bystanders are deliberately killed. That said, the rationale for the explosions at the end is more than a little dubious.
The film isn't as humorless as some have complained: there's a lot of dry humor where appropriate and a delightfully playful game of cat-and-mouse with Bond and M in a hotel, but none of the outright slapstick comedy that dragged the series down before. Nor is Forster's direction or the editing as awkward as some found it: there's a pleasingly epic scale to the film allied with a non-nonsense straight-down-to-business attitude that works well for this particular story.
The most curious complaint is that it's just action with no character development, when nothing could be further from the truth. While there is more action, the characterisation is integrated into both plot and action. Bond is once again on an emotional journey - forgiveness, believe it or not, is ultimately the quantum of solace of the title - though this time the heart and soul of the film is Giancarlo Giannini's Rene Mathis, the kind of man Bond might be capable of becoming and one he learns something about himself from. One of their scenes, alternately surprisingly tender and genuinely shockingly callous, is easily one of the very finest moments in the entire history of the series.
Craig still owns the role impressively and Jeffrey Wright starts to come in to his own as Felix Leiter this time round. Mathieu Amalric is one of the better villains of the past twenty years. He won't be among the greats, but he convinces and the scheme is genuinely ingenious in its simplicity. Olga Kurylenko manages to shake off the ineptness of her former performances to be a more than adequate but not especially memorable female lead, though Gemma Arterton lets the side down badly in a part that has unwelcome elements of Serena Gordon in GoldenEye and Rowan Atkinson in Never Say Never Again. Thankfully it's a small role so her weak and stilted straight-out-of-stage-school acting can't do too much damage.
Intriguingly, the film exists in a more convincing world of global politics than we've seen before in a Bond film: SPECTRE would have loved to be around in an era when governments eagerly step into bed with crime syndicates if it suits their ends and where corporations are able to play governments and intelligence agencies against each other. Here Bond works for a British government that tortures suspects on foreign soil in its desperation to snatch the scraps from the superpowers' tables. Initially, Bond is just as ruthless and morally flawed as his masters, the bullish arrogance gradually being smoothed away by emotional experience as he learns the importance of forgiveness to find the quantum of solace of the title that he needs to go on.
Yes, there are weaknesses - M's office is overdesigned, a few scenes could have played better, the Goldfinger reference just seems lazy, the song is crap and the gunbarrel sequence is a big and unnecessary mistake - but it's not the crushing disappointment some are claiming. It may not be a great Bond movie, but it most definitely is a Bond movie, and a damn good night out at the pictures. And one that left me seriously thinking that even if the series never recaptures the high of Casino Royale,we may just be entering a genuine second golden age of Bond movies.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Thought this was one of the worst Bond movies ever. Nothing of the
magic that made many of the other 007 movies so special was to be found
here. The cutting of the film is terrible. masses of 2 second sequences
thrown together - for no apparent reason. (as the movie is so boring I
found myself counting "one...two...) over and over again. If the action
is poor it appears a cheap trick to try to "create interest" by
chopping it all up and using 25 cameras to shoot that which has no
interest. It just comes across as irritating and silly.
The car chase sequence in the beginning might have been good, if the filming thereof had been better. What could have been fantastic was destroyed (again) by the poor cutting of the movie. masses of sub second fractions thrown together making everyone confused as to who was being chased, who crashed etc.
The race scene in Siena was utterly stupid. The cut back and forth from the Bond action to the race action again and again was utterly unrelated and therefore pointless.
The scene in the movie were Bond discovers the underground lake and states "he is draining all the water" as an explanation to the central "badness" that the villain is about to do is utterly laughable and silly.
The end scenes with the building which is designed to explode step by step was the last straw. I have rarely seen anything more staged and unbelievable. I considered leaving a few times as the movie was so boring but then I thought that "can it get any worse"? and yes, it could and did.
We want James Bond 007 back again, lets pass this "experiment" into history and forget that it ever happened.
The previous movie Casino Royale was a good action movie, though it wasn't a Bon movie (either). The Jason Bourne formula works, but Bourne is Not Bond and this is not a Bourne movie, i don't really know how to classify other than "utterly pointless", I couldn't see any redeeming features, no plausbile plot, no interesting characters, no fantastic sceneries, awful title song, no "Bond"-ness - at all
When Casino Royale arrived two years ago I was a very happy person. I
was one of what feels like the few people that actually wanted Craig to
do well as Bond. I wasn't moaning about him being blonde, I wasn't
moaning about the lack of gadgets, I was just happy to see one of my
favourite fictional characters back on screen. As many people know I am
a huge Bond fan, I have all the movies, I love them all in their unique
way, and even if Casino Royale had been a disaster I would have found
some enjoyment out of it. Thankfully it wasn't a disaster, it was
actually one of the best Bond movies made. Quantum of Solace is a
direct sequel of Royale, and so I once again had high expectations of
it. Perhaps even more so than with Royale, as now I knew Craig is a
superb Bond, and I wanted the story to evolve more. Let me start off by
saying Solace is not as good as Royale, and for many people that will
be a problem, as so many people were expecting an even better movie.
While it is an extremely good movie, and a brilliant Bond movie, its
just not one of the best and does have a few problems. Still as a Bond
fan I still absolutely loved nearly every minute of the movie. It isn't
overlong and outstays its welcome like Royale, but neither is it rushed
as I feared. The performances are incredibly strong once again and
there are some thrilling action sequences thrown in as well.
Daniel Craig once again is very strong as Bond, and unlike what a lot of critics have said, is actually good fun. He can deliver a pun quite well, and he also does the dramatic and seriousness of Bond to perfection. In short he is definitely up there in terms of quality with Sean Connery. He feels a bit more comfortable as Bond this time around, he doesn't have to say the famous line which sadly felt a tad forced at the end of Royale. Instead he does get his fair share of brooding, although his verbal sparring with Gemma Arterton is pretty brilliant. The lead Bond girl this time is played by Olga Kurylenko, who I last saw in the dismal Hit-man movie. Thankfully here she plays a very interesting, although different Bond girl. She doesn't appear much for the first half, and her first sequence seemed more random than interesting. However she does develop quite nicely and by the end she is definitely one of the better Bond girls. Lead villain duties go to Mathieu Amalric. I have to say he was a bit of a disappointment after the brilliant Lechiffre in Royale. Amalric is a slimy villain, and he does put in a good performance, but his villain just isn't all that menacing, and I can see him being one of the easily forgettable Bond baddies. Judi Dench gets an awful lot more screen time this time round, and its all the better for it. M has been rewritten as a superb character, and gets some nice bit of swearing to do. Finally Gemma Arterton is fairly decent as a wasted Bond girl. She has way too little screen time, and far too little to do, however she does shine through, and features in one of the more memorable moments of the movie.
Quantum of Solace story wise is perhaps where the problems begin to slip in. Royale's story was simple and very easy to follow, while Quantum is nowhere near as confusing as people are making it out to be, the movie is a bit overcomplicated for its own good. The villains plan is nowhere near as diabolical as it really could be, and I feel I need to watch the movie again just to get the intricate details of the movie. However as most Bond fans know story is not always a Bond movies strong point, just look at Live and Let Die, Die Another Day. So long as it manages to entertain I am quite happy. Solace thankfully is a brilliantly entertaining movie for the majority. I will admit, the pre-credit sequence is a very big disappointment. I know the stunts were good, and it should have been thrilling, but I felt so oddly bored by it. However once the credits sequence began, to a song I am steadily coming to like, the movie kicked off. The rest of the action sequences were particularly well done, my personal favourite being a bit in an opera house, extremely well edited. Drama wise the movie is very solid, there are some lighter moments to keep people happy, and some amusing one liners, but the movie for the most part is pretty down to earth.
Quantum of Solace as I've said is a great movie, and no doubt many people will love it, although some will be a bit disappointed by it. Either way Craig is still a great Bond, and I cannot wait to see more adventures with him as the lead. Although we could do with a more interesting villain next time round please.
This is the first time I ever came out of a Bond film at the cinema
thinking, 'I enjoyed almost none of that.' And there was no mystery for
me as to why I felt this way. I didn't have to weigh up the other pros
and cons (it is not an unsophisticated film) or think far or deeply. I
couldn't stand Quantum Of Solace because ninety-five percent of its
action sequences are appallingly directed and edited. Endless, wobbly
extreme closeups are cut together too rapidly into a meaningless dirge
which prohibits you from discerning anything about the nature of the
How many cars are participating in this car chase? Will I be allowed to glimpse anyone's face in this scene other than Bond's? Will I be allowed to glimpse even Bond's face? Which boat is in front? Where is anything in relation to anything else, ever? And just what was that? That blur in front of me for the past half a second, what the hell was it? The answers to these questions respectively throughout Quantum of Solace are, 'I have no clue, no, no, I don't know, I will never know, I don't know, I still don't know.'
I'm tired of reading any defence for the most extreme incarnation of this style of action coverage. It is purposeless obfuscation. It's anti-exciting, annoying and just plain rubbish. Bond films in particular are known for their history of spectacular action and stunts, and if you briefly consider any eighties Bond film, you'll recall that somewhere in it was a long, held shot of something amazing. People fighting on the back of an airborne plane, racing cars through Paris or pursuing each other down a mountain on skis. Compared to any one of those scenes, everything in Quantum is a disgrace, incapable of engendering marvel or wonder.
Perhaps I should try to be less catastrophic about the direction of cinema in general and just apportion blame directly to the guy from the Bourne films whose second unit did this to Quantum, and to Marc Forster, who directed the film, and either sanctioned or did not repel the Bourne-on-steroids content. Call me Mister Insane, but I demand the context, information and sense of place delivered by even the occasional wide shot. To see how Bond kung-fu'd an elevator full of guys would be cool, right? The event happens in this film, but what you actually see is a camera jerking crazily over ten inch wide patches of dark clothing, to the accompaniment of cabbages being walloped on the soundtrack. Imagine if Bruce Lee tried to get away with this crap. And this wasn't a well considered case of indicating what had just happened by offering the impression of it rather than the depiction of it, it was simply a continuation of the house style.
Quantum Of Solace takes anti-illuminating film-making to new, stupid lows!
Excellent movie, I won't add spoilers, but be aware, it's a sequel to
Casino Royale and is necessarily darker in tone. Bond has shut down
emotionally as a consequence of Vesper's death and is driven to
investigate and, to some extent, avenge her death.
Daniel Craig further extends his takeover of the role, he exudes a sense of sadness with a ruthless drive to move forward with his mission. Mention should be made of Judi Dench - she delivers another excellent performance as M.
Would heartily recommend watching Casino Royale on DVD beforehand if you own it, specifically to prepare and remind yourself of the odd plot point as they certainly will be relevant here.
Bond fans rest assured it's fantastic entertainment. It has to be agreed that it is lacking in old-school quips and innuendo, but in my opinion it is entirely in keeping with Bond's situation in this movie. There are some beautiful locations though, especially in Italy and the Aston looks great, for a little while!
As Bond himself says, "you don't have to worry about me". I'm not worried about the franchise and the third part of this trilogy will be worth looking forward to.
Casion Royal left us with a glimmer of the old bond returning to out
screens. How wrong we were to be misled by this.
This was an out and out action movie. Bond has lost his charm, his wit, his gadgets, his humanity. While I was prepared for a darker Bond, this new bond was really just a thug with 00 license.
The story was weak and the villain was neither scary nor evil.
The action scenes were filmed in a very choppy manner which made them hard to follow.
There was no suspense.
This was a poor sequel to Casino Royal.
The franchise needs to pull it together, or it will lose it's audience
|Page 1 of 121:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|