Quantum of Solace (2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,022 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Shoddily directed and horrifically edited, but not a total misfire.
lnvicta25 November 2019
Quantum was my least favorite Bond movie for quite some time. After the over-ambitious Spectre, I look back at Quantum with fondness due to its simplicity. Not necessarily in its plot, but in its treatment of Bond as a character and his coming to terms with Vesper's death. It's an epilogue to Casino Royale; Bond is hellbent on revenge. It effectively functions as a discount Bourne film. Daniel Craig is great as always, as is Judi Dench and the rest of the supporting cast. The problems with Quantum lie mainly in the directing and editing.

The film opens with a car chase - Bond is being pursued by thugs. Why? We find out later, but the fact that we have no information at the start makes it really hard to care about the action. On top of that, the camera is moving and cutting every half-second so it's nearly impossible to tell what's even happening. This shaky-cam technique is used throughout the film and it's as disorienting as it is annoying.

We're eventually led to our Bond Girl, Camille, who is a unique Bond Girl for having her own character arc (and her own villain), then she leads Bond to our main villain, Dominic Greene - a businessman who wants to buy a pipeline to control Bolivia's water supply. Not exactly a James Bond-level threat, is it? Greene is no match for Bond physically in any sense, but their final confrontation is gratifying if only to see a villain genuinely, and rightly, terrified of Bond. It's great fun to watch Greene yelp as he's swinging an axe around for dear life while his fuel cell-ridden desert hotel explodes around him.

The rest plays out like a standard revenge story. Camille wants revenge against General Medrano for killing her family, and Bond wants revenge for Vesper by going after the organization that was blackmailing her. The writing is stilted and unpolished, but where the movie mainly fails is in its directing. It's pretentious and tonally clashes with the dark character study of Bond that the script is going for. It also doesn't help when the action scenes keep cutting away to a nearby horse race or an opera.

What we have here is a Bond-Bourne hybrid that had the impossible burden of having to follow Casino Royale. However, it's nice to see a gritty Bond adventure for a change. It's not a great Bond movie, but it's engaging enough to be a good time if you're able to look past its flaws.
112 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fast paced but in trying to cash in on the success of Jason Bourne, Taken n other quick cut editing movies, this one too tried the fast cut editing n ruined the fun.
Fella_shibby18 May 2021
I first saw this in 2008 with my family in a theatre.

Revisited it recently on a dvd which I own.

This is the twenty-second in the Bond series, a direct sequel to Casino Royale, and the second film to star Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Like its predecessor, this one too doesn't rely on gadgets n cgi n has more chases n fast paced action but in trying to cash in on the success of Jason Bourne, Taken n other action movies, this one tried the fast cut editing which ruined the fun.

In quick cut editing one cannot make out who's who n what is going on.

In this film, Bond seeks revenge for the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd and is assisted by a Bolivian agent Camille Montes, who is coincidentally seeking to avenge the murder of her own family. The trail eventually leads them to Dominic Green, well connected with CIA and a businessman working in reforestation and charity funding for environmental science but helping an exiled General to get back into power, in return for support for his sinister plans along with CIA.

This time Bond faces Craig Mitchell, General Medrano, Dominic Greene n Colonel Carlos.

I miss those olden Bond villain's powerful henchmen.

This time the movie being fast paced n Bond on a vengeance, Bond gets to cool off with Gemma Arterton only.

The pioneer of the balcony/window jump is undisputedly Jackie Chan (Rumble in the Bronx).

Jason Bourne in Bourne Ultimatum copied almost the same jump.

Bond too copied almost the same jump in this movie.
23 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Solid & enjoyable even if a lot of it could have been a lot better than it was
bob the moo11 November 2008
I was looking forward to seeing this film but I'm not sure I was excited to see it. This had been tempered by some average reviews and also some negative ones that suggested that it was simply, not very good as a film - a lot of which have come from ideas over what a Bond film should be. People praised the "reboot" but apparently QOS is unacceptable? I do not think that the Bond films cannot change it up, but if they tried to do a Bond that was a romantic comedy I would be the first to come to this site complaining about "what have they done to Bond?" so I'm not totally for change.

QOS is not that much of a step away from the Bond tradition and it is just more of an action movie than a Bond movie. Yes I thought it was strange that the traditional opening was saved for the end of the film but the absence of gadgets, innuendo, comedy etc didn't bother me one bit – these were what I hated in Die Another Day in particular. Some have had the issue that QOS follows directly on from the previous film and that the narrative flows directly rather than restarting with a new threat. I liked this though as it cuts away the need to establish everything fresh and instead we get the development of the Quantum organisation - a thread that is good for several more films I suspect. Others have complained that the story made no sense (Kermode in particular went on about how little sense it made) - personally I didn't struggle with the overall flow. The specifics of some scenes or characters perhaps were lost on me, but this was mainly because the film didn't spoon feed me - and I'd rather it made me think. It is not a traditional Bond story though but it worked and those scoffing about the exploitation of one country to make money and get power as a trivial plot by the series standards are not seeing this as a part of a bigger, powerful organisation.

Where the "story" side of the film falls down is in the development of the character as Bond – it could have been any character doing the running and jumping. Don't make me wrong, it is not terrible but the title credits made me hope for more. You see, the names I recognised that made me think something would click were the following - Daniel Craig (arguably the best "actor" to play Bond), Paul Haggis (Oscar winning writer - and not for action films but for films where story, script and characters were the whole show), Marc Forster (Kite Runner and Monster's Ball - again, more about characters and material than action). I wasn't looking for QOS to be a no-action, all character affair but I did hope that these talents could do great things with the new, darker character of Bond. But they don't. Yes we have the general continuation of this tough, violent man driven by some twisted sort of vengeful love but it makes very little of it. The scenes between the action do well enough to built the story and connect the action but ultimately they are only "the bits between the action". The cast are still good - but just feel like more was possible. Craig is a good Bond, rough, fit and attractive with dark menace in his very heart. Amalric may not be a typical Bond super-villain but that was the point. Kurylenko is stunning and fits the modern Bond girl role well. Dench does what she does with quality but Arterton offers nothing but a clumsy Goldfinger reference while Jeffrey Wright's performance suggests an interesting character that the script never produces. Giannini's character produces a moment of emotional and superficial coldness in Bond that is good but otherwise I could have done with him or his character.

The action is what the film is about and, while enough to entertain, is never as thrilling or engaging as it should be. This is a problem and it's a problem that Bond struggles to solve - the Bourne problem. I know some people hate rapid editing and tight shots on principle because it causes motion sickness or "you can't see what's happening" but, done well (as in Bourne) it can draw the audience into action and make it a lot more intense. However, it is not something that happens in the editing room alone. For Bourne this approach compliments and is complimented by the choreography of the action and also the filming style. With Bond it feels at times like this style is an afterthought - some of the action scenes work with it but in the majority it only detracts from the scene. It is still noisy enough to do the job and I do like the brutal edge the scenes have but the editing was not a good call here. Otherwise the action is "good", great locations, fast cars, big explosions - just a shame that nothing had me on the edge of my seat.

QOS is different from the traditional, Christmas-afternoon-telly Bond; but clearing away a lot of clutter doesn't bother me as much as it has some viewers. The film works well as a solid action movie but falls short of being anything special. It is so conscious of Bourne that, in imitating aspects of that film, the makers forget to see if it works with what they are doing. The lack of depth and development in the character is also a disappointment given the talent involved in key areas. It is still a solid and enjoyable film that is worth seeing even if it is hard to ignore that most of it could and should have been better than it is.
40 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Something is not quite right with this latest Bond offering
Gordon-116 November 2008
This film is about James Bond cracking down a multi-national corporation that works with dictators to get a share of precious natural resources.

"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.
779 out of 1,113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
They Forgot the Charm, the Cool, the Exotic, the Erotic, and the Fun
LeonLouisRicci8 March 2014
Incomprehensible at times and Utterly Charmless, the Best one can hope for is that James Bond (Daniel Craig) has put His Feelings to Rest, has Forgiven Vesper, and can now get Right with the World of Espionage and Become the Secret Agent that He was Meant to be.

It manages to Clear the Air for the Brooding Bond and that may be the Only Thing that is Clear in this Dismal Movie that has so Little of the Bond Feel that it cannot be Forgiven.

The Action Scenes are more of the Post Modern, Quick Cut, Shaky Cam Nonsense that Works quite well in Very Limited Doses but is used here to Nauseating Excess that Hacks and Film School Students, and B-Movie makers have Adapted for a "Style" that has been so Overdone as to be Ridiculous. Add to that some Extreme Close Ups and all Sense of What Goes On is Lost in a Placebo of Adrenaline.

The Film's Locations are Anything but Exotic, more like Third World Infomercials that are Used to Adopt a Hungry Child. This is a Rather Boring Bond and is about as Unexciting as a Bond could be. Given the Backstory and the Historical Template and Oodles of Money it has just Enough Empathy from Fans to Tolerate this Dull Delivery, but just Barely.

The Title is one of the Worst for a Bond Film, as is the Opening Trademark Song, and Overall One gets the Feeling that They are in Disdain for the Character's Attributes and the Coolness that made Bond Survive over 20 Movies, 5 Actors, and 5 Decades. Its Acceptable to Modernize a Bit, Tweak a Little, and bring a Slightly New Artistic Touch, but not at the Expense of the Root Material.
35 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Potpourri of Vestiges: The Quantum that lacked Solace
murtaza_mma8 November 2008
Quantum of Solace or Quantum so less, as some of its critics may call it, definitely lacks certain aspects of a traditional Bond movie. It may be eccentric in the sense that it may not be able to titillate the esoteric Bond fans as it may lack their eclectic style and taste but it definitely succeeds in projecting a new Bond for the contemporary world who may not be a coeval of a superhero, who despite being vulnerable has got the killer instinct in him, which is the very defining characteristic of Ian Fleming's larger than life human incarnate. This Bond goes about his business in a fashion which is far more realistic compared to the Bond of the bygone era with an incredible passion and utmost devotion which is nothing but inexorable. Though Casino Royale was the pioneer of this graduation but its Quantum of Solace that consummates it and gives Fleming's agent a mystique which has always eluded him hitherto, an aura which gives him an opportunity to be mortal and hence a chance to qualify to be called a human.

Quantum of Solace is loaded with mind blowing action sequences which makes it a high octane extravaganza. The pace of the movie is such that you hardly get time to breathe freely. The plot though comparatively weaker than its precursor, is still good enough to keep one guessing thereby keeping one at the edge of the seat, all the way through.

The only aspect of the movie which should be under the scanner is its editing which is far from just and at times needless and severely annoying. A bit constraint editing under some meticulous vigilance could have done wonders and would have probably helped it, in its quest to be the best Bond movie of all time.

All being said and given what we have, the movie fails to disappoint the audience and will surely redefine the very prerequisites of an action movie and will definitely serve as a benchmark for the movies in the years to come.

40 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stop the directors! Stop the editors! I want to get off!
Bloomer17 November 2008
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 scene.

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!
346 out of 475 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
fine actors cannot save one of the worst James Bond films
dromasca27 June 2009
Let me say from the start that Daniel Craig is one of the finest actors having played James Bond, maybe the best since Sean Connery. Judy Dench is also the best M. ever, and the idea of a female M. is just genial. Yet, the series are in trouble, and something needs to be done to save the series from the downturn that seems worst than the world economy.

I will call the film QOS because the name requires a non-native English speaker to use a dictionary to understand it - and this is one of the many small problems that make a big disappointment. Another one is the unconvincing evil character. Another one is the lack of global threats in the intrigue - to justify the immense destruction and number of widows and orphans left on the track a James Bond movie must invent something more interesting than the water supply of Bolivia revealed as the big motivation way into the film. The action scenes themselves are well made, but too fast, too many, to confuse to help the viewers understand what is going on and care beyond the pure aesthetics of destruction.

Bringing on the set fine actors and redesigning the character into a human being with real feelings as well as into a darker Bond fit to the world of today is a great idea. It is not enough though. Bringing good script writers is even more important.

Oh, and yes, please bring back Q. and please have Bond say at least once 'My name is Bond. James Bond'. There is no such thing as a good Bond film without those.
31 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The name's Bond, James Bond....or is it?
The_Void2 November 2008
Martin Campbell's reboot of the James Bond series, Casino Royale, received praise and criticism in equal measures for the fact that it steps away from the James Bond trademarks. This film continues down that path and actually moves things even further away from the Bond tradition. I have to say that I'm not the biggest Bond fan myself and so this didn't bother me too much; but I won't be surprised to find that many Bond fans are not Quantum of Solace fans. As a thriller in its own right, however, the 22nd Bond movie is action packed and entertaining; and certainly a lot better than its title! The film follows on directly from Casino Royale and features James Bond attempting to find revenge for the death of his love who died at the end of the first film. He sets out to get to the bottom of the organisation that was behind her blackmail and intelligence links him to Haiti, where after hooking up with the beautiful and feisty Camille, he is lead to ruthless "charitable" businessman Dominic Greene and discovers a plot by the shady organisation known as 'Quantum' to take control of the world's most important natural resource.

The lack of gadgets is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of differences between the classic Bond film and this reboot. Daniel Craig is a million miles away from the likes of Sean Connery in terms of looks and persona; and his Bond is not even similar in character. While still suave, this James Bond at times comes across more as a highly trained assassin than a secret agent; and only one scene that sees James give British Intelligence the slip in a hotel really reminded me of the resourceful spy seen in the older Bond films. The plot really allows the lead character to show his darker side; but in essence the film is just a collection of stunt sequences and kill scenes; which while undoubtedly entertaining, it not what most people will expect from a Bond film. However, in its own right the film certainly has a lot of positives. The cinematography is gorgeous and this is more than matched by the beautiful locations; which include Italy, Haiti and South America. The best thing about it for me was the casting of Olga Kurylenko as the Bond girl. Again not the typical Bond girl, but she sure is nice to look at! Marc Forster (Finding Neverland) takes the directors chair and is actually more geared up towards providing the action scenes than I thought he would be; but several of them are edited together badly and lack tension as a result. The film attempts to tie itself to the rest of the Bond series by way of a Goldfinger-style death scene; and while it's undoubtedly very cool, it doesn't really fit in with the rest of it and comes off like an afterthought. So to surmise - is The Quantum of Solace an entertaining action thriller? Unquestionably yes. But is it a James Bond movie? Unfortunately not.
137 out of 233 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Perhaps not one of the great Bond films, but an ultimately worthy entry in the series.
ametaphysicalshark12 November 2008
Whether or not you liked "Casino Royale", and most people certainly did, Roger Moore fanatics probably excluded (hey, I respect their opinion), it was something Bond had never been before, and it surprised a lot of people and reinvigorated genuine interest in Bond after "Die Another Day" by which point it was frankly becoming an obligation to attend the new Bond film rather than a pleasure. After the emotionally charged story, and particularly the climax, of "Casino Royale", the bar was set very high for the follow-up.

Does "Quantum of Solace" deliver? Well, honestly, the answer to that depends almost entirely on what you were expecting. If you were expecting a lengthy, down-to-earth, 'realistic' ('plausible' is probably a better description for "Casino Royale") character-based revenge flick, "Quantum of Solace" is not it. What "Quantum of Solace" does is weave the characterization into the plot and action to the point where we don't have room to breathe. The criticisms against the movie for lacking in character development are downright absurd- it's all there, the movie just doesn't stop and explicitly tell you what it's doing. If you're paying attention to what Bond's doing throughout the film surely you will understand why he is motivated to do those things. It's pretty careful and refined writing from Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (with the addition of script polisher/editor Paul Haggis).

What "Quantum of Solace" doesn't do is deliver a repeat of "Casino Royale". I'm actually quite amazed at the venomous reaction to the film by fans who seem to adore the more humorous, faster-moving Bond films. I mean, this isn't exactly right up their alley, but it's sure as hell not as drawn-out and slow-moving (although I didn't feel that was a bad thing in CR's case) as "Casino Royale", it surely doesn't spend most of its time on the dialogue and characterization, and it surely isn't as significantly divergent from the Bond formula as that film was. This is, ultimately, not unlike several Bond films we've seen before. There's snarling foreign villains with accents, a shadowy evil organization with political motivations, there's plenty, plenty of action. The "Bourne" comparisons are especially confounding. So, because Robert Ludlum once took from the Bond character and stories to write his "Bourne" novels, the Bond film series can't go back to Bond's roots in Fleming's great novels for inspiration? I'd say that "Quantum" has more in common with Bond films of the past than any of the Bourne films. If they're talking about the action scenes here, then while they lack the coherence of some of the greatest action scenes in Bond history, they are still much easier to follow than anything in Greengrass' "Bourne" films. Outside the first 15 minutes there's barely anything here that resembles a Bourne film at all, actually. The first two action scenes- the car chase and foot chase- are over-edited for sure, but the rest of the action scenes are grand, particularly the plane scene and climactic action scene at the hotel.

The technical aspects of the film are all good, director Marc Forster doesn't mess up (which, given the quality of many of his previous films, was perhaps the greatest danger this Bond installment faced) the David Arnold score is not one of the great Bond scores, and his (or the producers') refusal to use an orchestral version of the score much during the actual film is quite frustrating, but it's quite good and certainly not among the worst scores the series has had. Craig is an absolutely superb Bond, Olga Kurylenko is a find Bond girl and fairly well-developed but not at the expense of Bond or the story, while Gemma Arterton's limited screen time is an unnecessary diversion. Arterton's not the only flaw here, the design is a bit naff at times, and there's several things that could have been done better, especially during the first 15 minutes, but the movie works as a whole, and it's not nearly as humorless as some are suggesting; there's some genuinely funny stuff here, without descending into over-the-top camp. Actually, "Quantum of Solace" sees a welcome return of a deadpan delivery to the one-liners which evokes Connery's best moments. No winking at the camera, no raised eyebrows, just the jokes. Felix grabbing a beer and looking nonchalant as the SWAT team tried and failed to capture Bond, Bond stealing the bike from under the informant ("I missed!"), Bond and M at the hotel... So many great moments.

"Quantum of Solace" is perhaps not one of the great Bond films, and while I would not like to see "Quantum of Solace" become the template which the Bond series will follow in the future (it is only completely satisfying when taken in context as part of a larger storyline), it is still not just a good action thriller, but an often gloriously enjoyable Bond film, and a fine entry in the series.

234 out of 391 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So cool
Smells_Like_Cheese16 November 2008
After seeing Casino Royale a few months ago, I realized something, there is a big re-imagining of the James Bond series. James Bond is now more serious, a little darker, and has a lot more edge. I grew up with the 007 films, my dad and I watched them together all the time, they were always a blast to watch. Now I'm grown up and Daniel Craig is the new James Bond and he is so cool and smooth, he's taken on a very charismatic Bond, he'd make Sean Connery proud. Quantum of Solace is the very first James Bond movie that is actually a sequel, it continues right where Casino Royale took off, so there is no off set when it comes to the story. The action is jam packed, I loved a lot of the action/fight scenes incredibly, but I'd say it's a notch below Casio Royale since the director didn't seem to know how to edit well in those sequences, because I don't know about you, but I couldn't tell what was going on or who was getting hit. But the story is a great continence to Casino Royale.

Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M interrogate Mr White who reveals the organization which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined. Forensic intelligence links an Mi6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille, a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene, a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organization.

Quantum of Solace is completely worth the watch, it was a lot of fun, it has it's small flaws. I think the editing just could have been a little better, like I said, some scenes go so fast that you can barely keep your head on from turning side by side. Daniel Craig is a great Bond, he is still incredibly cool to watch. However, Olga Kurylenko, pretty girl, but not exactly the most interesting "Bond Girl", nothing about her really stood out to me, so I hope they'll do better the next film. However, I did enjoy Quantum of Solace, it's a great action film and an excellent addition to the Bond series.

26 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Weak plot, idiotic direction and progressively more disappointing.
joachimokeefe8 November 2008
I'll start positive - the very watchable Daniel Craig has nailed Bond as well as Connery did for his time, and QoS manages in many scenes to supersede the glamorous traveloguery of the earlier franchise. There are a (very) few jokes, the totty isn't just totty, and they've also slightly toned down the CGI and product placement from CR, which can only be a good thing. (Though Bond's phone never loses coverage, never needs charging, and zooms in on single faces in a crowd of thousands. At night. Is it nuclear powered?) But QoS isn't much bang for your buck. It's just an extended chase, which would be okay if Marc Forster hadn't made such a truly, unforgivably dreadful job of the action sequences. In Bond, you're expecting stunt work much like a great circus act - you want to be blown away by the skill and ingenuity of the performers. But Marc Forster's direction completely gets in the way. He literally loses sight of the action every time a sequence comes up; the only one that half works in spite of his pretentiousness is the plane chase. This means that you leave the film unsatisfied by the weak plot because you couldn't follow the action that would have made up for it. Meanwhile any Bond character development you've heard about is minimal, Judi Dench still doesn't understand the character she's playing, and the final climax is a clichéd and dismal melodrama. (Imagine 'Backdraft' on a budget). A final point: it would have been far more accurate, funny, and true to the 'Bond reboot' to see the British Secret Service struggling with ancient clunky technology, rather than that unbelievable super-slick Minority Report-style system, which is plainly a pathetic nod to the action film competition - and maybe the sponsor.
33 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It Seems Like the Director and Editors Wanted to be the Stars
Michael_Elliott10 November 2012
Quantum of Solace (2008)

** (out of 4)

Weak sequel to CASINO ROYALE has Daniel Craig returning for his second stint as James Bond. This time out he must try and stop a man (Mathieu Amalric) from trying to control the water supply in the world. Or something to that effect. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a fair movie on its own but as a Bond film it's a major disappointment on so many levels that it's really not fair to even call it a Bond movie. I mean, everything memorable about a Bond film is missing here from Q to Moneypenny to brains and thrills. This is such a strange movie to watch because it seems that the director (Marc Forster) and editors wanted to be the star of the picture. Just take a look at the opening action sequence, which really has nothing to do with anything else in the film. The scene is very fast, the edits are very quick and it's really impossible to see anything that's going on. This here is okay for an action picture but a Bond picture is supposed to have brains to where the action has the hero having to think his way out of the situation. That doesn't happen in this scene or any of the action scenes that follow and it appears that the director and editors just want to put their style all over the screen no matter how much it harms the picture. But then again, perhaps they did this because they knew the story they were working on seemed incomplete, boring and just not satisfying at all. Craig is perfect as Bond but there's just nothing he can do here. Judy Dench is fine as well but again can't save anything. Olga Kurylenko is pretty forgettable as the sexy woman and Amalric is one of the least interesting villains in the series' history. QUANTUM OF SOLICE is just a downright mess of a film and one that can easily be skipped.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a bad bond film
MLDinTN12 April 2010
I thought this movie was terrible. First of all, there is no plot. Something about revenge but if you didn't watch Casino Royal right before, then it makes no sense. It's been over a year since I've seen Casino Royal, so I didn't remember much that carries on into this film. So Bond is after revenge for his girl's death from Royal and something about going to Bolivia and chasing a guy that is trying to buy much of Bolivia's water supply in order to get rich. He teams up with this chick, Camille, whom is after a general that killed her father. But she's not like a typical Bond chick because Bond doesn't get romantic with her.

The way the action scenes were filmed was terrible. The camera was so shaky and just quick flashes; you couldn't even tell what was happening. And I don't like how this Bond is just out to kill people. Pierce Bronson's Bond was never like that. It makes him cold blooded and you don't want to root for him.

FINAL VERDICT: I could barely make it through this movie, it was so boring because there is no story to follow. I don't recommend it.
22 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A different kind of Bond
simonparker199031 October 2008
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.
465 out of 766 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
MGM Spent $200 Million$ & Got "Quantum of SAMEolce, SAMEolce"!
KissEnglishPasto31 July 2016
From PASTO, COLOMBIA-Via: L. A. CA; CALI, COLOMBIA+ORLANDO, FL ------------The ONLY Tony Kiss Castillo on FaceBook!------------------

(Read Review TITLE LINE FIRST!) Too much, apparently, methinks, for what ends up being a fair to middling action popcorn flick. Opening credits over and BAM!... Overblown car chase. At that moment we really don't know who is chasing Bond, or why, but then he's Bond! Who cares, right?!? Well, I, for one, do and certainly I'm not alone.

Soon after this opening car chase we discover that some hitherto unknown sinister organization which, despite being ubiquitous, has managed to stay under the radar and remain totally undetected, is posing the biggest current threat to world stability. Boy! We've never heard that one before, huh?

Don't get me wrong. As I said here, at the beginning, "Solace" is, as action movies go, fairly entertaining. What I find just a bit sad is that the Bond franchise, despite this huge budget, can't come up with anything better. There were a few other things that bothered me, that perhaps would go unnoticed by most viewers. The characters were supposed to be speaking Spanish with a Bolivian accent. Well, instead... there were Mexican, Iberian, Caribbean and eastern European accents. The taxi-driver, at least, sounded Bolivian!!!

Both Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko tried their best within the constraints of an unmemorable script (Paul Haggis-screenplay Crash/Million Dollar Baby) and direction that seemed focused on getting as quickly as possible to the next action sequence (Mark Forster-Stranger than Fiction/ Monster's Ball). Still, for the hardcore action/Bond enthusiasts out there, you'll undoubtedly like it a lot more than I did.

5.5* rounded up to 6 ******.....ENJOY!/DISFRUTELA!
28 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I blame Bourne
shanayneigh20 March 2009
Ever since the two last Bourne movies came out and made a bit of money, the film industry has suffered from a severe case of ADD. It now seems mandatory for directors to partake in the George Lucas "faster-more-intense" and Paul Greengrass "shakycam-mounted-on-top-of-paint-blender" schools of film making, only now it's called "contemporary gritty action." It seems like the whole movie was shot hand held with a 200mm lens, operated by a guy with Parkinson's disease. As icing on the cake, no cut is longer than three frames.

I guess the underlying logic is that this will make the movie more "real" and "documentary-like". The only thing it makes me feel is nauseous. I can't stand this trend in film making. To be honest, it feels like a cop out, like they can't trust their stunt team to do well enough, and have to shield their performance in shaky images and hysterical cutting. And surprise surprise, it turns out that the second unit director of this movie, Dan Bradley, worked on the last two Bourne movies.

But technical aspects aside, the story was less than engaging, which is a shame since I have an interest in the specific MacGuffin of the movie, having even written an academic article about it.

I think the main problem is that I don't really care about any of the characters. Craig may stare intensely and bite down as hard as he wants to, but I still don't really care about Bond. It's not that I don't like the Bond movies (I own all the other movies on DVD), I just don't buy this new story line where they try to make him into a sort of Bourne-light. I say let Bourne be Bourne, and Bond be Bond.

Olga Kurylenko sure is pretty to look at, but her character here is about as memorable as her character in Max Payne: one big yawn. As for Mathieu Almaric, he feels a bit too pathetic to be a criminal mastermind, although I like the whole thing that they don't give him an eye patch or scars, but that he's ordinary looking.

This was one incoherent mess of a film (what was the deal with the horse race?) that I'm not likely to watch again, nor am I likely to purchase the DVD.
30 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Come to terms
kosmasp19 April 2009
After the "Bond begins" movie with Daniel Craig (also known as Casino Royal), I came to terms into where Bond was moving to. And watching Jason Bon... ah sorry I mean James Bourne of course. No, but seriously, after many years, where Bond was the one that got copied, Bond now tries to stay in touch with the times and went "air-bo(u)rne" (pun intended).

You can hold it against this movie, as well as the fact, that Bond never get's to say his name on-screen ("Bond. James Bond"), but does that really matter? For some it does, but I think if you survived the Casino Royale deconstruction of Bond, than you should be prepared, what to expect here.

I liked the raw-ness of Bond and I also liked the ending, which is so Anti-Bond, that it has an original flavour and adds to the whole thing. Of course there isn't much of a plot here ... it's a continuation to the Casino Royale story, or better it sort of concludes that. I did like the movie, because I got my head around one thing ... to rephrase a quote: "Bond is dead, long live the (new) Bond!" I'm not that excited about the whole thing yet, but maybe after the third one, I will be! And a movie that get's that much attention and get's discussed and even taken apart by some, has to have something going for it.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a quasi Bond a'la triple X
krzysiektom13 November 2008
What a band of clueless idiots wrote, directed and produced this film. Someone should have told them before that the general public is tired of this new fashion of quick editing, cutting the action scenes and fights to pieces so that the viewer sees... nothing. It is an awful film-making method, which spoilt greatly "Gladiator" for me and then several other action films, including this one. Large chinks of the Decalogue are totally cliché and boring. To have such a product, such a budget and choose a talentless director and a mediocre script is very disappointing. I like the them song though, contrary to most I consider it one of the strongest Bond songs of all time. I hope to see more fun, joy of living dangerously and expensively and more sophistication in the next Bond. Finally, someone wrote here that Judy Dench is in fact always the same, I agree. She must be the most overrated actress ever.
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unrelenting, tight and icy
Simon_Says_Movies28 November 2008
If I may, I would like to begin this review with a kind of rant; a rant about the path this movie has taken since its overseas release, so bear with me. Who is to say what a 'James Bond' movie should entail? Obviously Ian Flemming, who scribed the source material, but the public's issues rarely involves and argument surrounding an unfaithful literary adaptation. Now if you have a gripe with this film on another level, such as acting, direction, whatever, I will happily respect your opinion. No, in the case people claim Quantum of Solace 'does not feel like a James Bond movie'; and I'm sorry but that's a load of bull. If James Bond is in it…then it's a James Bond movie. (Not to mention the abundance of Bond trademarks: the foreign beauty, the isolated enemy hideout, the product placement, the cars) Dropping the character into a 21st century environment does not deprave the suave spy of his persona, nor does it ruin the film as a whole. Leaving behind the sometimes excruciating campiness of films like Live and Let Die, is a wise decision; as is that to tone down, if not fully eliminate implausible gadgetry and corny one liners. Writer Paul Haggis is more then talented enough to make Bond compelling and debonair without the need to return to Connery era dialogue. Another superfluous gripe floating around is Bond's lack of restraint and turn into the realm of brutality after the death of his love Vesper in Casino Royale. Now, I will admit to a few moments where Bond's callousness became too predominant and took me out of the film, but with that being said the decision to tweak the character accordingly in response to the immediate events of this film is wise. He is not a faceless killer, he is angry, he is human. Also important to be cognitive of, is the fact that Bond only recently entered the spy game, and the burden of his sins and nightmares of his past have not yet crested. I foresee a troubled Bond in future installments, a la Jason Bourne's catharsis in Ultimatum. The last thing I will say is that Bond has always been a killer; he has a licensed to do so. Brosnan's Bond killed dozens more people then Craig ever has, and just because they are not faceless henchmen, and the acts are committed in a grittier fashion, is no reason to get in a stink.

Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace picks up the pieces immediately after the events of Casino Royale led him to a mysterious figure named Mr. White. Following a high octane car chase, as only Bond can boast, M. (Judi Dench) and Bond (Daniel Craig) try to piece together who the organization is behind Vesper's death and how they could have retained such anonymity. Bond is whisked worldwide as he follows leads and tips which eventually lead him to a man named Dominic Greene, who is in sinister negotiations with a Bolivian General named Mendrano (Joaquin Cosio). It is here that Bond, under very poor terms I might add, meets the beautiful Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who too is looking for revenge. Under their burning desires they team, to find the answers they have been longing for. Quantum of Solace acts as a bridge movie, as like The Two towers did for Lord of the Rings; the plot is not advanced anywhere far, but builds tension and compounds wonder. As such, Solace is not as good a film as Casino Royale, nor does it have to be. It is however sleeker, glossier and more visceral.

Craig again puts forth a stellar acting effort and solidifies his stand as one of the best ever Bond's, and is formidably complimented by the dames in his life, such as Dame Judy Dench who gets solid screen time as M. and makes the most of it to be certain. Kurylenko has a unique chemistry with Craig, not a burring lust or passion, but the two share a bond, (no pun intended) derived from their mutual quest for vengeance. Dominic Green, played by Mathieu Amalric is creepy and sinister; not in a foreword way but similar to that of Le Chiffre; intelligent, not physically intimidating (Although he puts up an impressive fight during an exquisitely fiery pivotal scene) Some may be bothered by the quick camera cuts, but I have never been one to be bothered, or even notice these techniques, which is perhaps which is why I enjoyed the Bourne's, Cloverfield and other's, so thoroughly.

The action is bold is unrelenting, the slim running time is comprised mostly of high energy sequences, and serves as an apt compliment to the slow burn of Casino Royale. While Craig serves his revenge icy cold, he gets into significant heat; churning out some close calls and is almost always boasting a fresh set of bruises and gashes. The biggest determent to this picture is the vastly inadequate opening song and sequence, featuring Alicia Keys and Jack White and is a mediocre pop song on its own, and a flat out bad Bond song in context. Despite that hiccup and a long-coming gun barrel sequence Bond is back. I for one am excited to see where the actions of Bond, in this film, will take him as he continues his quest, as Quantum of Solace shows shaking up an old formula can make for a stirring return.

View all my reviews at Simon Says Movie Reviews: www.simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not a Quantum of Fun
kenjha9 April 2010
In this 22th entry in the series and the second with Craig, Agent 007 is on a path of vengeance for the death of his girlfriend. A serious and angry Bond is no fun. Perhaps that's why this is the worst entry since "License to Kill," the last time it became personal for him as he sought those responsible for shooting his CIA buddy Felix Leiter. Leiter is fine now, except that he's turned into a black man. The action scenes are so poorly shot and edited that it's impossible to figure our who's doing what to whom. Unfortunately the first 30 minutes is all mindless action with no discernible plot. Craig's Bond is dour and charmless. One positive is that it's shortest film in the series.
16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another disaster... yet again
santiagocii10 November 2008
One more time... after the intense action but zero Bond factor movie (Casino Royale) the filmmakers decide to pull this sequel of overall nonsense. Yes, yes.. previous Bond's movies also contained tons of science fiction and unreasonable events... yet, all of them were covered with the Charm and wits of the perfectly trained, smart and handsome super spy named Bond.. James Bond. Today... we have this totally unrefined dude, who kills more like a gangster, who spends 99% of his time frowning or doing weird things with his mouth like ZOOLANDER!!!! The plot is ludicrous.. the villains are even more ludicrous than the star actor.. I saw people yawning at the theatre!! The best part of the movie must have been the first 5 minutes of car chasing, and not because of the actor or the chasing itself but due to the amazing Aston Martin DBS. I find it hard, really hard to understand how people keep on scoring this movie or its predecessor with 7 or 8... Something must be wrong.. really wrong.
80 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This is not Bond...
buiger21 January 2010
I totally agree with Ebert. James Bond is definitely not an action hero, he is a myth, a state of mind. Therefore, Quantum of Solace is not a Bond movie, it is something else. Something I don't like at all. I didn't like Casino Royale, and I like Quantum of Solace even less. Call me old-fashioned, call me nostalgic, but I do long for the times when Bond had style, class (Craig does wear immaculately tailored suits, but in essence is nothing but a thug when compared to Connery or Moore), had time to talk, have sex, dry martinis, etc.

And then there is the action... Less (much less) would have been more. The movie is basically nothing else but a series of ridiculous, over the top action scenes which are totally incomprehensible, unbelievable and unrealistic. To top it off, the sound in the movie is so bad, you can barely discern the dialog (the little that is there) and the action scenes are yes, deafening but that is all they are. How could they have produced such bad sound in a major, high budget production in the 21st century is a mystery to me (I saw the movie with DTS sound on blu-ray and a top-notch audio system, so there is no excuse there...).

All in all, in my eyes a total flop; This is not Bond, this is something else.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointing Bond film
TheLittleSongbird8 August 2010
I sort of enjoyed Casino Royale, but I didn't love or revere it. Now this review is coming from someone who enjoys the James Bond films, GoldenEye, Goldfinger, Dr No and From Russia With Love for examples are wonderful, but I just didn't enjoy Quantum of Solace very much. It isn't the worst film ever or anything and I don't think it is the worst Bond either, but it doesn't feel like a Bond film.

Quantum of Solace does have its good points though. The scenery is very striking, same with the cinematography, and the special effects and gadgetry are very nice touches too. Same with the beginning, which was very impressive indeed. And there is some decent acting, Daniel Craig I feel has more presence here and Judi Dench is solid as always.

However, there are several things wrong as well. The main problem was the plot, it was incredibly convoluted and made no sense. The dialogue isn't great at all, at best it was okay at worst it was non-existent, with little humour or sophistication and some of it is spoken very low so you can't hear it. Then there is the pacing, it is in general too slow, but I also thought the ending was rather rushed. Also the music was disappointing here, I love the music in these Bond films, my favourite Bond song is From Russia with Love, but the main theme is somewhat messy and bland and the incidental music isn't as clever or as innovative here. And I thought the direction was not great at all, some of it was dreadful even especially in some of the action sequences which feel chopped and rushed, while the villain was very insipid. While I liked some the action particularly the beginning like I said, but some of it lacked the thrilling spectacle I was kind of expecting.

Overall, has its high points but it should have been better. 4/10 Bethany Cox
19 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's a sequel - and dark as a consequence
seamanm1 November 2008
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.
318 out of 525 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed