Quantum of Solace.

Possible Spoiler Alert in case people haven't seen this movie!!!

Although there were some good action-elements in this movie, I must say that I didn't feel this was a Bond-movie ... It lacked too much to be called that in my opinion. I think, Bond has lost some of the charm and charisma that the previous Bond-characters provided, and Bond has now become a person on the loose seeking revenge which is not very Bond-like.

I agree that Casino Royale was better - I even think it was MUCH better. I thought QoS was missing some key elements throughout the movie. For example - what happened to Mr. White who ended up being the super villain in Casino Royale? He escaped in the beginning, then what? We saw him for maybe 20 seconds in the theatre and then nothing... We never got to know what happened to him which is pretty weak in my opinion.

I also agree with the Bond girls that they were pretty weak in this movie.

And why didn't they at one time have key lines like "Shaken not stirred" or "Bond, James Bond".

All in all - if they left out the 007 franchise and the name Bond, I could have been watching "just" another action movie ... or more likely ... a Jason Bourne movie (remember the Bourne-trilogy?)

Sorry if this seems too negative, but I had to speak my mind about this movie. I'm still a joyful guy, you know ... Hey, it's weekend soon - Yay

You know, I didn't actually mind that they deviated from the feel of a traditional Bond film, I think if they keep going for the "shaken not stirred" type stuff, it'll end up in the state that it was in during the License to Kill era. I liked the film, but, it just lacked a certain depth. I don't mind if they borrow some techniques from Bourne, but the characters just didn't carry the story in the same way as Royale.

I guess I have to agree with both of you guys.

As an action movie, it was great. Non-stop, hold on to your seat, intense action.

As a Bond movie, it lacked many key elements that make a Bond movie a Bond movie.

I'll just name a couple of things: The QofS music theme at the beginning was terrible. Also, I don't like that they didn't play the James Bond theme at the beginning and only at the end. (They've done that a few times now.) There was no Moneypenny. There was very lIttle, if any Q. I think he was there, but I don't even remember it. And one major, major thing.

(spoiler alert)


At the end of most Bond movies, after everything is all blown up and the bad guys disposed of, Bond ends up with the girl. Reinforcements arrive, but Bond always eludes them so to spend some 'quiet' time with the remaining girl. In this one, Bond doesn't get the girl. Instead, she leaves Bond and walks off into the sunset like she's John Wayne, ready to fight more bad guys while Bond is left with Judi Dench. It just wasn't the right way to end a Bond flick.

It looks a heck of a lot like an in-between movie with a self-sufficient plot attached to it. I think the strangest feel was going back and forth between Bond's personal score to settle and the story currently going on, which somewhat destroyed the sequel aspect. I have a hard time believing this entire thing was going on WHILE the events of Casio Royale were occurring, which had to be the case considering the timeline.

We do however get the feeling of learning a bit more about this overwhelming organisation who drastically changed in proportions from the previous installment.

I think my biggest issue, something that's been a recurring problem in the past few years, is that it felt a lot more like an episode of a TV series than an actual movie. I don't know if it's the plot or the pace, or most likely a combination of both, but walking out of it I thought I had just watched this week's episode of James Bond: The Series. A very good tv episode, mind you. It just didn't have the prestence of a movie.

I've had that experience more often than I'd care for in the past years.

All of this said, I still enjoyed it very much. Craig definitely embraced Bond and made it his own thing. He shoulders anyone he shares a scene with, despite his actual size, and you can't mistake his character for anyone else. I've heard many Bourne comparisons since Casino Royale, but his Bond is infinitely more interesting to watch and follow than Bourne. There's only so much ass kicking and car chasing I can watch before thinking I'm watching some generic tv show. I did like the Bourne trilogy, but it's not something I'd follow for 22 movies and over 40 years, as opposed to Bond.

In the highs and lows of this franchise, this certainly isn't among the worse, but at the same time it won't go down in Bond history the way Goldfinger, Golden Eye or Casino Royale has. I'm already keeping an eye out for the next one completing the story, which I expect to be longer and better.

I got the feeling that Quantum of Solace was deliberately un-Bondlike, and Bond's line "I never left" followed by the gunbarrel at the end signal the start of "real" Bond from the next film onwards. It was an enjoyable film, though the fight choreography was a little disorientating at times. Definitely not among the worst though.

Ever since Daniel Craig took over as Bond, I have had not interest in the bond films. Not becuase of him... but becuase they seem very boring. Maybe its becuase its harder to get away with a decent action film these days... and I also feel there is not much Bond left in these most recent films. Needless to say, I might save this one for DVD.

-Cub. =o)

I admit I really enjoyed Casino Royale. Seemed like a good reboot of the series. However, Quantum of Solace seems like the kind of movie that I would hate. Saving it for dvd, also.

-Fred

I wasn't very impressed with this movie... Saw it Saturday nite, and left not liking it... It just didn't feel like a James Bond movie and I heard alot of people saying that...

Also I thought they story was awful... and at some stages hard to follow... cause there wasn't much of a story, and the story there was, was revealed ever so quickly...
I give it 2 out of 10...

-- Chris M

I saw this Sunday and wasn't thrilled. I felt it was weak on plot, even for a Bond movie. It was more like watching a two-hour car chase. There were several potential additions to the plot that didn't go anywhere. For example, many villians were introduced at the opera, and then nothing really happened with them.

It was a decent bit of mindless entertainment, but it's among my least favorite of the Bond movies.

It was pretty dismal. It looks like it's trying to be a Bourne movie but it should leave Bourne to being Bourne and Bond to being Bond. It seems we all have a similar view on the rest of it all. Bond doesn't look as if he's enjoying what he's doing, in fact it's quite the opposite, though it's not Daniel Craig's fault, he acts well, he's just not the right Bond, and I think it's probably the worst Bond movie I've seen.

But as an action flick it's ok.

My 2 cents:

Having seen the movie on opening day I rather enjoyed it. Now because it was a reboot I have to admit that they do not have that Bond "feel" to it yet. They are getting there. Because it was essentially an origin story they have to go through the whole "How does he become the Bond we know and love?" so with that I am alright. Deep down I just love 'splosions and flashy stuff anyway so it fit in with that. The parts where I had issues were the ending. It seemed to lose something in the 4th quarter of the film. It's been days since I watched the movie and I still can't quite put my finger on why I feel that.

The one thing I've noticed with this new Bond is that they try to make him more plausible. Kind of like what a real spy would do in this situation . . . but still have Bond style craziness. The 2 don't really meld well. I like how they made him more Bourne with the fighting but I think as Craig's character progresses they need to make him more clever. Instead of running after the guy find a way to take him down with an inanimate object. Kinda like Jackie Chan in his declining years. This would make a good transition to all the other Bond flicks. Yeah he still fights and all but maybe just not as much.

The Bond girls, I did find them lacking in the . . . well everything. I neither cared nor was interested in them in any capacity. I did kinda like the oil slick homage to the gold paint, that was neat. Also the stationary seduction line was over effective. I've tried it 7 times since this movie started and I never had the same results. As a matter of fact I now have 7 separate restraining orders against me because of this movie. Alright I am lying but still it was weak at best. Funny but not laugh out loud funny. More of a smirk and a head nod.

The action, I absolutely loved the one shot where they fell through a window onto a scaffold and beyond. I have to find out how they did that, I am pretty sure there's some CG in there but if there isn't BRILLIANT shot! (it's hard to tell on a blurry theater screen, have to wait until the DVD or BluRay to analyze.) The rest of the action was par for the course but I always like action so it all just rocked.

The story, I found to be a little weak. Casino Royale and Quantum were written by Paul Haggis (the same Due South creator guy from the Fred Thread . . . HA Fred Thread. sigh I'm an idiot.) ANYWAY the story in Casino was good but I found I was mostly bored during that movie. Except for when Eva Green was on screen, mmmmmm they got that Bond girl right. The story in this one seemed like a forced continuance and wasn't really interesting.

M . . . I like M and Judy Dench so I will leave her alone.

Where the hell is Q? Is he ever going to be back? Are we going to get a new Q and a first meeting scene with him in the upcoming flick?

Two words . . . Money Penny . . . where the hell is she?

Someone said it above and I thought the same thing with the bond shot from the barrel of a gun. I figure this was a way to transition to the next flicks to be like the rest, hence the reasoning behind NOT putting it at the beginning. Only time will tell that one.

Overall I enjoyed the explosions and flashy stuff but felt a little empty after watching it. It was good but definitely didn't feel like a Bond flick. Maybe next time they'll get to the tradition, but not beat us over the head in an obvious formulaic Bond flick. There's still plenty of room to stretch old Bond and I think it'll blend nice with new Bond. Just need the right people to pull it off. Hey Cub you wanna come with me and make a Bond flick? No? Alright then I'll just stay here and do what I am doing.

2 cents - Good movie, not a good Bond movie.

I didn't care to see it as I hated Casino Royal so much. But then I have never been a big fan of James Bond films.

Someone said it above and I thought the same thing with the bond shot from the barrel of a gun. I figure this was a way to transition to the next flicks to be like the rest, hence the reasoning behind NOT putting it at the beginning. Only time will tell that one.

The thing is, I thought the exact same thing at the end of Casino Royale when he held is splendid MP5 and said "Bond, James Bond".

I'm starting to get a Terminator sequels vibe where we're always promised to have a film focused on the future but never quite get there. T3 was especially annoying for this.

When you think about it, the background story hasn't progressed at all from CR to Quantum, save for the meeting at the end. Why would the third film of this mini-series be different? Will we be promised James Bond at the end of that one as well?

Again, it's not that I disliked this film, but it was very much a big filler between CS and whatever comes next, and that's always disappointing. It's not like they have a tv schedule to maintain, so what's the point of stretching something if you don't have the material for it? There's so much untapped potential out there, don't waste time and resources on something like this.

I've heard bad things about this newest to the bond series... Haven't seen it myself yet...