Quantum of Solace Reviews

This is a good film that surprised me with pushing important narrative truths about corporations and the USA government and their allies attempting coups on Latin American countries.

I remember it quite well, I saw this movie with my wife in the theater when it was released. To be honest, even though I thought that 'Casino Royale' was a solid action movie and an interesting approach to tackle the mythical James Bond, I didn't think it was as mind-blowing as everyone else was thinking. Above all, I thought the story was seriously a mess. So, when I heard that Marc Forster would direct the next installment, I was genuinely intrigued. What would happen if you put a really good dramatic director in the directing seat of a James Bond flick? I'm afraid, nothing much... I mean, to be honest, I don't think it was much worse than 'Casino Royale' , its predecessor was just slightly better and, in my opinion, those two movies were about the same quality. Of course, Daniel Craig was still really impressive as James Bond, the action scenes were really entertaining but, again, I couldn't care less about the story. I mean, this movie was supposed to explain all the plotholes from the previous flick but I wasn't really convinced, that’s for sure. Anyway, we shouldn't take this too seriously. After all, it is a James Bond flick, no more and no less than that, I thought it was entertaining enough and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are a fan of the oldest movie franchise ever conceived.

"The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere."

The movie and the storyline were great. The director was not. What would have been a fantastic follow up to one of the best bond movies in years fell short of its mark, all because of erratic camera movements and focusing too much on the location shoots. I must admit, the scenery did complement to the events, but i can't help but feel that they could have substituted a few of the locations for studio shots. But that's water under the bridge; i'm just glad that the movie wasn't entirely ruined. Craig gave his signature take on bond, but this time, he added the factor of a man bent on extracting revenge on the people responsible for the death of the woman he loved, no matter how hard he tries to deny it. What i cannot understand is how some people think that Kurylenko's character as a bond girl is one of the worst they've seen. Just because she didn't bare her body and snog bond doesn't make her rubbish. She is one of the few bond girls who can actually keep up with the agent, while looking chic and stylish in a dress. She's definitely a kindred spirit: she also used her sexual wiles to get into Greene's good graces just so she could have a shot at killing the man who killed her parents and her sister. I really loved her character, and no matter what other people say, Camille may very well be one of the best bond girls ever. Blonde and white aren't the only criteria for being hot, people. :p Finally, Greene. I find it interesting that the people involved with Quantum have colors as their last names. Is it a clue to the nature of the organization? And when will Blofield (if Craig IS the same bond as those played by connery, moore, lazenby, Dalton, and brosnan) be introduced? I saw Greene as a nerdy geek gone evil. He's smart, and at the same time scary; he can have anyone he wants dispatched without exerting any effort other than how to dispose of the body. Brains over brawns. A true villain. If only forster smoothed out the camera movements in the car and rooftop chases, it would have been perfect. I still love this movie to death, though. :DDDD

James Bond (Craig) is back in his 22 adventure on the big screen. This time around, Bond is out for revenge, after the death of his beloved Vesper. Bond is ruthless and cold, going after business man Dominic Greene(Mathieu Almaric) whos company “ Quantum” is set to become the leading oil distributors in the entire world. With the help of M and the other MI-6 agents Bond is sent across the world to try and take down Greene as well as solve his personal issues before he is out of a job.

The character of James Bond has beem through many adventures. As indicated above, 22 to be exact. He has been portrayed by some great actors over the years, including Peirce Brosnan and Sean Connery. Bond is known as the man who can score with the ladys and take on any challenge. James Bond is the man every little boy wishes he could grow up to be. As a child we are conditioned to believe that James Bond is the ultimate bad ass action hero. We are told to believe that James Bond can do it all. All children see James Bond as this action man, who can take down any bad guy. As we grow up we see the Bond films on a different light. We see them for the story. Bond has to take down the evil doers before they end up upsetting the natural balance of the world. Before there is a shift in power. The older Bond from the 60's and 70's became a cult classic. Then there was no room left for an original story, so they began to send Bond to bases on the moon. The silly thing about that is, the people bought it. Bond was the hero, the man that could score with any lady he pleased. Why is not possible that the indestructible James Bond could go to the moon? The concept was easily explained, easily side stepped and it was a hit to say the least. After you send the most powerful secret agent to the moon what is left for him to do. They kept Bond going, there are over 20 stories in circulation and even a few videogames with their own original stories. Eventually there would come a time where you run out of stories for a man built to take on the world. Then what, what option do you have at the point? Then it clicks, why not restart with a new actor and restart the story. That was the plan for Casino Royale, the same exact name of the original Bond adventure (which isn’t his movie). Casino Royale told the story of a new up and coming secret agent, who according to that film is not perfect. He didn’t go to the moon, but he took on a case that challenged his wits and made him think. They gave a man who even adults could admire for his faults, and not just a man we wished we could be. But a man that no one wants to be because of what it is he has to do. They hired an actor, whom they thought could handle the pressure. And he did, to be honest. He was brilliant, shocking, truthful, intense and fresh. Daniel Craig was able to offer something that hadn’t been seen in years. An emotional James Bond. Craig excelled and the Bond franchise took on a darker and more revealing tone. It was clear that there would be more to come.

Daniel Craig was not able to nail his performance in like he was able to last time. He was left searching for those powerful lines that he delivered in Royale, but they weren’t there. Bond was left ruthless and cold, no personality, no emotion like he had in Royale. It was set right after Royale and it was not even close to the quality. Bond was on a mission like usual, but unlike Casino Royale the reasons and anticipation were forgotten and we were left with the man who could do it all, the man who could kill anyone he pleased. James Bond was forgotten, but we were introduced to just a simple killer who was place in a film they titled James Bond and gave the 007 number to.

There were some highlights to go along with all the disappointments. It had action, if that is what you were looking for. It had beautiful settings to help the action. They had a story that reflects today’s society. They had James Bond giving himself to random woman and driving and wrecking expensive cars that most people will only dream of having. Most importantly, this film had the Bond name and that is all people need and they will be there. To make a bold prediction, the Bond franchise will go down from here, Daniel Craig will hang on for 2 more flicks and then they get rid of him the same way they got rid of Brosnan. Craig will be ridiculed, but please people do not forget when this happens that he was the man behind the incredible Casino Royale.

Here a couple quotes to sum up the frustration this film has left me with


James Bond: How long have I got?
Felix Leiter: Thirty seconds.
James Bond: That doesn't give us a lot of time...

This quote really serves up how cheesy this film was. They failed to deliver. Bond never really gave any lines that would chill or make you feel anything. I was constantly sighing and rolling my eyes, while hoping this film would give me something.

Dominic Greene: Be careful of this one, Mr Bond. She will not go to bed with you unless you give her something she really wants... but you make a fine couple - you are both, what is the expression? Damaged goods

This quote was probably the most eye rolling of them all. It just shows that James Bond is a pimp. Greene is telling the audience that Bond can get with the ladies. It was a quote that could have been changed and held more meaning. Greene is calling the girl a gold digger and calling Bond a pimp. A very uncalled for quote.

Quantum of Solace could have been a masterpiece. It could have been something to celebrate, the rebirth of the new James Bond, but they went back to the old James way, which is that he can take on anything. James Bond is now a superhuman in my mind.

What the hell is this?!?!?! I was dreadfully disappointed with Quantum Of Solace because it didn't have any Bond originality to it whatsoever. It didn't feel like a Bond film at all. This film has a story that is an incredible mess that doesn't even explain the title of the film. I think the main flaw that this film had which really annoyed me was that there was no "Bond, James Bond" or "vodka martini, shaken not stirred". Also, where the hell is a cool Bond car? A bit of black-comedy from "Bond" and Moneypenny and R? I wasn't expecting it in Casino Royale because Bond wasn't officially 007 whereas at the end of Casino Royale and the start of Quantum Of Solace. Also, the stupid Goldfinger rip-off too is something that really annoyed me. Instead of gold paint it was black oil and it was a naked woman on a bed. That is pathetic and pointless because it rips off a film from it's own series. Quantum is apparently the organization which we don't know enough about even after watching this and also what the hell does "solace" mean anyway? The action scenes were the only decent things in this film but I admit that most of those scenes were a bit too explosive for a Bond film. I mean it's a Bond film not a gory Crank/Rambo film that has very fast pased action. I think the biggest flaw was that when you see the big running time of Casino Royale (longest Bond ever: 144 minutes long) and the very gripping dialogue that it has and then you see its sequel Quantum Of Solace which is only 1 hour 40 minutes which is the shortest Bond film yet. In some of those scenes when one shot on the screen came up it suddenly changed to something else. I think the best impactful action scene was the boat chase.


Daniel Craig's acting is absolutely brilliant but he wasn't portraying James Bond. He was portraying a different character. The way Daniel Craig portrayed "James Bond" was good as far as the action is concerned and the ways with the women but the story and the script made it a rather embarassing film to the James Bond series. Olga Kurylenko made a pretty lame Bond girl because I was almost laughing at her awful performance. She didn't show any seriousness to her character in any way whatsoever. Mathieu Amalric was an average villain. He seemed like that slimy type of actor to play that kind of character but if the villain in Quantum Of Solace was more powerful, threatening and fearful he would have given a better performance.


Marc Forster had no clue in this film and that's final. I think he must have watched the Bourne trilogy over and over again to get an idea of how to create an action film which is probably why Quantum Of Solace and particularly The Bourne Supremacy are very much alike. Also, seeing "Bond's" moments of revenge for Vesper was like Bourne with his girlfriend Marie. Forster sort of rushed the action sequences in this film. It felt like he was forced into making it. I think he was copying other directors with action films like Michael Bay, Paul Greengrass and Martin Campbell. I heard rumours that Danny Boyle was going to do the 23rd James Bond film and it is a damn shame he rejected it because I think he would have definitely shown a true James Bond film.


I am now going to pretend that Quantum Of Solace was never made and there was only Casino Royale and no sequel to it. The only connection Quantum Of Solace had with Casino Royale regarding the story was only the few mentions about Vesper. Other than that, it was like Craig was in a different action film playing a Bourne-like character. Despite there was action scenes involved, I was bored within the first 20 minutes and wanted it to just finish. I am speaking for most Bond fans here and for most people who have seen this film: Quantum Of Solace has killed James Bond. The 23rd James Bond film better not be as bad as this one. It's a coincidence because Casino Royale is my favourite James Bond film and Quantum Of Solace its sequel is the worst James Bond film. If it is I shall never watch Bond films again. I want Mr. Bond back!

Boring as hell, worst bond ever.... just another shoot them up movie....
where has the british humor gone?

"I think you're so blinded by inconsolable rage that you don't care who you hurt. When you can't tell your friends from your enemies, it's time to go."

Quantum of Solace was intended to be the sweet dessert to compliment the main course preceding it (i.e. 2006's Casino Royale). By this I mean Casino Royale developed the characters and established the plot (all the vegetables, so to speak) with very minimal amounts of action (the sweet portions of the meal, in a manner of speaking). Quantum of Solace therefore establishes a reason for itself to offer nothing more than pure action. And therein lies the unforgivable, lethal flaw of this film: it's all action and style without an ounce of soul or substance. Even with the "sweet dessert" philosophy applied, Quantum of Solace is only marginally redeemed.

Usually there's no problem with an overabundance of action, but it's crucial for action to be two things to make it work - comprehensible and exciting. The action in this particular Bond outing fails to adequately adhere to these aforementioned necessities. But the film's predominant fatality is its over-reliance on its predecessor. Casino Royale established the story; however CR's story hopelessly lost momentum into its final third. The story was milked until the milk began turning sour, thus there was virtually no interesting story remaining for Quantum of Solace to continue. Consequently the story is stilted and convoluted to the point of non-existence. Bond dashes around an action arena shooting every individual he can aim for. He shoots first, asks questions later. He is grilled by his superiors for this, but the film's self-awareness of Bond's new killing policy doesn't redeem this flaw.
Quantum of Solace tries to do something unimaginable: it endeavours to compete with the Jason Bourne films. It jettisons a solid story in favour of continuing a story which seemingly felt already complete. The result? Fundamentally an extended trailer (that at the same time feels tragically underwritten) featuring our beloved Agent 007 in name only form.

"I am motivated by my duty."

The film kicks off almost exactly where Casino Royale ended. In the timeline, the first scene in Quantum of Solace occurs merely one hour after the end of CR, hence the first Bond adventure in history to establish chronological obligations to its forerunner.
James Bond (Craig) becomes obsessed with revealing the mystery behind a top-secret organisation known as QUANTUM (a modern-day SPECTRE). Bond desires to exact revenge for the death of his girlfriend Vesper (played by Eva Green in Casino Royale) who was blackmailed by the enigmatic organisation. His off-the-grid investigation leads 007 to Austria, Italy and Bolivia, along the way crossing paths with the nefarious Dominic Greene (Amalric, keeping both eyes open after 2007's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). Bond soon uncovers a plot to control the world via the water supply. (Yes, the movie is about water. Why not make the next Bond villain intent on eliminating a breed of moose in Alaska?)

The principal flaw with the story of Quantum of Solace is simple: it doesn't have one. A conventional Sylvester Stallone affair offers a more intricate plot. In Fleming's Casino Royale novel, Vesper dies and Bond moves on. The truth behind Vesper's enforced betrayal is so clearly set up during the last film, but it becomes hopelessly lost in a welter of unnecessary distraction and abandoned threads. This film acts as a bridge to complete Bond's origins tale before allowing the series to proceed to more conventional Bond canon entries. In all honesty, every blundering frame of Quantum of Solace seems every bit as useless as the one preceding it. If the screenwriters didn't make Casino Royale so despondently long-winded, they could have summarised a fairly adequate Bond origins tale in the space of just one movie.

Marc Forster (the genius behind Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction and Monster's Ball, just to name a few) has adequate skill to tackle different genres with each new film on his résumé. Alas, action/adventure isn't a genre Forster is capable of handling. Director Martin Campbell offered exhilarating action scenes in Casino Royale as they were competently handled. But for this sequel Forster succumbs to the baffling technique of each shot lasting a nanosecond. When it comes to an action scene it's crucial to offer an opportunity for a viewer to confidently distinguish what is happening and, critically, why it's happening. A sequence intercutting an opera house shoot-out with a performance of Tosca is virtually impossible to follow. Veteran Bond directors have been capable of orchestrating action with confidence. Martin Campbell's sweeping action scenes in both Casino Royale and 1995's GoldenEye are simple to follow and enjoyable to watch. In this case Forster generates zero tension. As guns are fired and things explode, a viewer can't discern who's been killed.

70% of the film's 100-minute duration is action. The prevailing philosophy appears to be "when in doubt, cut to the chase". Every time an intriguing dialogue scene is established a gun is commonly pulled out and bullets begin to fly. Each scene develops into an excuse for action. The film tears, rips, bangs and shatters but says zilch. No pop. No fizz. No story. When the action scenes aren't handled well (and quality of action in a Bond film is essential), there's something gravely wrong.

Quantum of Solace opens with a frenetic car chase. There's a great deal ruckus occurring on the roads, but it's so perplexingly filmed, hence impossible to decipher what's happening and why. Cameras are placed at awkward angles, shots are too tight and it's outright jarring. Unfortunately, these poor filming techniques mar action sequences throughout the film. The narrative fights a losing battle with Forster's cinematic style and in the end it's the audience that loses. Valuable information is barely discernable in a jumble of dissonant images. No sequence of shots ever grips the attention of a viewer. There isn't a sufficient spine to hold the fast moving elements together. The opening car chase is breakneck (albeit jarring, as I said before), but the film's other action set-pieces are a decidedly mixed bag. There are a few crisp footraces, some semi-coherent punch-outs and an awful boat pileup that evokes agonising memories of the invisible car Pierce Brosnan tooled around in a few movies ago. After the opening car chase, the film moves onto the traditional opening credits sequence. The title song (performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys) is an abysmal cacophony of indecipherable lyrics and mismatched musical idioms. The title sequence over which those idioms do squalling battle is likewise disharmonious: conceptually clever yet visually grating. It's a pleasure to witness the return of silhouettes of naked women in the opening title sequence, but as a whole it's tragically unremarkable.

James Bond is supposed to be a spy. Yet the definition of a spy is one who employs convert methods while remaining underneath the radar. Here Bond is swinging, shooting, punching, diving and flying...yep, just like Jason Bourne. Being depressed about losing a loved one isn't an acceptable reason for Bond to abandon his orders. Bond is also transformed into more of a superhuman in this instalment. Towards the end Bond battles in an exploding building. Looks like game over for anyone human...but Bond utters cringe-worthy dialogue before miraculously escaping without even appearing threatened. The stylish, brainy secret service agent created by Ian Fleming (and established quite well in Casino Royale) is dead. He's been reincarnated in the form of a PlayStation game character. In fact, the abundance of stupid action scenes probably allows more of a compelling video game spin-off. But that's the thing - Quantum of Solace feels like a video game with all action and little substance.

The relatively smart character exploration of Casino Royale has been jettisoned. There is also a distinct lack of classy dialogue. All the explication confuses matters - from inaudible exposition (the dialogue is subdued in the sound mix which seems ruled by gunshots and explosions) to a Minority Report-style briefing sequence (it's so visually overripe that one's attention constantly shifts from the unclear dialogue to fussy imagery with little chance to extract meaning from either). For over forty years, Bond films have been standalone features with few recurring characters and few references to previous escapades. Quantum of Solace is a direct follow-up to Casino Royale, yet there is no recap of anything. If an audience hasn't seen CR for a while, how are they supposed to remember the Bond/Vesper romance? The Mr. White character would also appear pretty puzzling. But continuing the story where the last film ended probably seems so contemporary and the producers probably feel smart for doing so. After all, the Bourne series are one large chunk of connected happenings split into three films. This marks another example of evidence that Bond has become a clone of Bourne. That's the problem: it desperately tries to be something it clearly is not, nor was ever designed to be.

It's not a total disaster, though. The action is occasionally visceral, invigorating and hard-hitting when director Forster gets it right. And the colourful globe-trotting (while occasionally unnecessary) is marvellous. As much as it pains me to admit, it did pass the time and it wasn't boring. To an extent I did enjoy it. The stunt-work is to be admired, and the delightful mayhem (while not captured particularly well) is somewhat intense. The ending is also to be lauded. The film effectively wraps up the Vesper tale with a neat ribbon, and the scene is set for classic Bond to return (the gun-barrel sequence is even right at the end, signifying that Bond is now the Bond we remember).

Quantum of Solace is a bitter, incoherent, unclear, messy action film without any soul or substance. Poor Marc Forster doesn't adapt well to the action genre, with several quick cuts in the space of one second detracting from the film's excitement. The Bond origins story didn't need to be stretched into two movies. This film is just pure silly action. In the Bond canon it isn't the worst (Moonraker receives that honour), but it's sitting towards the bottom. Heck, I even enjoyed Die Another Day far more than this dreary film! As a continuation of Casino Royale, Bond 22 is unspeakably lacklustre. As a standalone movie it's even worse. Only die-hard Bond purists will have any reason to check this one out. The Bond Ultimatum is a more appropriate title.

On that note, an ultimatum for EON: return Bond to the smart stories with menacing villains. Also give him the charm, the trademark one-liners and womanising. And for the love of God hire a director who knows how to direct action scenes!

M: "It'd be a pretty cold bastard who didn't want revenge for the death of someone he loved."
James Bond:" I don't think the dead care about vengeance."

5.2/10

Despite what the crittics say about the latest installment in the James bond series Quantum of solace. this is actually what should have been expteced. With Casino Royale leaving on a high note(Daniel craig finally saying "the names Bond James Bond" and followed by the monty norman Theme song for bond). Quantum opens with a bang in which bond is in a car chase follwed by Mr. White's(Jesper Christiansen) Henchmen/bodyguards. the very opening scenes make you think that it might be a silent scene but this is not the case. the engines of both bonds Aston Martin Dbs roar to life with flare as well as the henchmen's. this is one of the various scenes thoughout the movie that does this. However, with brilliant Direction by Marc Forster(Finding Neverland) the scenes help add to bonds mood and current thoughts which is really pure genius in film making but nothing really new. Quantum is one movie that has many firsts for bond. including. the first Direct continuation between films,the first time bond doesnt say "the names bond james bond", and the first time the movie wasn't at least two hours long.(running at an 1 hour and 45 minutes). as far as things coming full circle we see that the death of vesper has truly affected bond in a big way, a way we have never seen before. and that bond does forgive people for there mistakes. Quantum of solace is no doubt a very different bond film but easily one of the best (just not on a standalone basis).

Quantum of Solace picks up where Casino Royale with James Bond seeking vengeance for Vespa's death. It's a quest that takes him from Italy to Haiti as well as Austria and Bolivia.
This Bond is less charming and more of a relentless machine, willing to do whatever it takes to get his answers.

The action is all out - sometimes over-the-top but there's a grittiness that prevents it from becoming cheesy. Marc Forster also puts in some slower and more human moments that form the heart of the film.

My only fault with the acting is Gemma Arterton - her character, Fields, doesn't really do much and seems out of place. Olga Kurylenko is pretty good - she does a much better job than in Max Payne. I have no complaints with how Daniel Craig plays Bond and Judi Dench as M is always excellent. Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene is a decent enough villain but sadly as a foil for James Bond, he seems to fade into the background when compared to Bond's presence. I was hoping for a bigger role for the guy who plays Mr. White because he seems like a better Bond villain.

My other quibbles with the movie are that some of the action relies to much on the shaky cam principle and that it isn't really explained who/what Quantum is. Perhaps they will delve into this in the next movie.

Even though is a more serious action movie, there are moments of humor - perhaps not the kind of humor people expect of a typical Bond film but I don't think that's a bad thing.

Thoughts on the theme song "Another Way To Die": loved the verses, hate the chorus.