a_cunning_beast

(2013-05-05 05:25:21)

The end of Bond as we know it

It seems that the studios continue their efforts to downgrade JamesBond to a dummy action hero.For those that are not aware James Bond was a graduate from Eton, thecountry's most prestigious and elitist institution, later serving as acommander at the Royal Navy where secret service recruited him from.However this style-less, violent, machine-gun loving,destroy-all-in-my-passage "guy" (who also does to wear the super tailormade suits we were accustomed to) is acting in a manner that bears noresemblance to the credentials worthy of a Bond degrading the genrefrom spy/thriller to action/adventure. In other words, one of thefinest franchises in cinematic history is fast becoming a flick.The more I watched, the more it occurred to me that I was in a Die Hardor Mission Impossible screening, definitely not a Bond.Again, just as it happened with Casino Royale, the numbers at the boxoffice justified this downgrade. Just because it was a commercialsuccess, does not make it a good film.

BruddanChrist

(2013-05-04 17:51:41)

Wasted potential

Nothing that made Casino Royale so memorable is present in Quantum ofSolace. QoS's plot is ludicrously thin compared to Casino Royale's.What could have been a deeply intriguing story is hardy touched uponand left unexploited. The major events in QoS are merely excuses forBond to kick some more ass.Quantum's action sequences are stimulating, but far less interestingthan its predecessor's. Whereas Casino Royale's action scenes weredynamic and carefully detailed, QoS's are frantic and standard. Whileit's obvious a lot of time and energy went into them, there's not muchto show for it. The cuts are quick and the shots are hard to catch.I, like many, fell in love with Casino Royale's James Bond. He wasyoung and authentic, capable of failing and getting hurt (bothphysically and emotionally). Seeing as how Casino Royale ended at whatfelt like the beginning of Bond's real character development, Iexpected Quantum of Solace to continue that development. QoS's Bond,however, is the same emotionless James Bond audiences have beenwatching for almost half a century. He has no believable motivation, sonothing he does feels purposeful.Finally, the antagonist never poses a real threat to Bond. MathieuAmalric has a creepy look that could have been put to good use, butDominic Greene is a painfully boring and clichéd bad guy. Le Chiffre'svery presence was intimidating; I wouldn't even cross the street toavoid Greene.Casino Royale was a powerful reboot for the Bond franchise. Itabandoned the old 007 formula and established a new one, gaining a lotof fans in the process (myself included). For whatever reason, Quantumof Solace dropped the ball. While it certainly serves as fun escapism,it disappoints as a continuation of the story Casino Royale began.

Goathands

(2013-04-26 18:20:14)

Good, Honest Modern Bond movie

After reading several reviews and hearing Roger Moore's comments. I wasapprehensive about seeing this film.But, nothing to fear here. This Bond film is Excellent! The actionsequences are great! Some have commented on the aggressive editing, butit is used sparingly and doesn't distract from that which makes bond aTour de Force.I thought the plot was very smart and contemporary. The story dealtwith real issues of environmental resources and a plausible scenarios.The plot was clean and efficient, with clear motives of character andlittle relying on obvious error or gaffs. Very refreshing after justwatching Moonraker (1979), which makes me wonder why one would everblow up a perfectly good Space station.QoS makes several reference to Casino Royal, which I kinda lost me,since the only thing I can remember from CR is the egregiously longpoker tournament that made me think I was watching ESPN2. Guess I haveto watch it again to see what I was missing.Honesty, Quantum of Solace is worth seeing in the Theaters.

Jan van Gerwen

(2013-04-26 01:57:42)

Just an action movie and not even a good one

Why they call this a Bond movie beats me, if 007 hadn't been in thetitle no one would have known it was a Bond. Even a hardened Bond couldstill have been a gentleman, and yes that Bond doesn't get out of afight without a scratch wasn't natural , but neither is the way he getsout of the fights this time. And worst of all , where are the gadgets,where is the humor and sarcasm. No, its not a Bond and thanks to theawful camera work its not even a good action movie. Its impossible tofollow a fight because someone thought that camera-work should bereinvented. The lighting is at best called a poor job. This could bethe end to the success for Bond movies.

(2013-04-13 09:47:18)

A Grittier Bond Pays Homage to the Original Bond

Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel to Casino Royale. In the movie Bond discovers the existence of Quantum, is introduced to his longtime CIA friend Felix, and further develops his trust relationship with "M" (Julie Dent). The movie is filled with nonstop action, car chases, shooting.The movie starts off right where Casio Royale left off and quickly introduces bond to Quantum (Spectre anyone?) and Bond is quickly whisked away to Haiti, South America, Italy, London and a slurry of exotic locales that is so typical of Bond.I found this installment gritty with a Bond which is decidedly more thuglike than the debonaire Connery or Brosnan but most certainly Daniel Craig as Bond is much more in tune with what today's audience demands of the character and the fact that there are so many homages paid to the original bond that it will keep traditionalists connected to the old bond.Overall, a solid outting.

Mustang92

(2013-04-12 19:59:48)

Just Horrible

How in God's name could they screw this Bond movie up so badly? How???The director, Marc Forster, has done some good movies before. Was thisone just "out of his league" due to all the heavy action sequences? Theaction sequences all SUCK, every one of them. Not only are they poorlycut together, there's even one that is cut together with an opera on atheatre stage. Not a bad idea, necessarily, but it doesn't work here.Just awful. Even the climax of the movie, the last action sequence, isutterly horrible... a massive building/structure in the middle of adesert, that inexplicably is able to have successive explosions toenhance the finale. Pulllleeease.The writers, one being Paul Haggis, has written some excellent stuff.So how could this script be so poor? A storyline that not only isconvoluted, but lacks story logic. Oh, sure, a lot of studio movieslack story logic or have horrible plot lines, but c'mon, this isinexcusable for a Bond film.I like Craig as Bond (thus this movie gets 2 stars instead of thelowest rating), but he does play it as a serious (and some here saybrooding) Bond. There are no humorous moments and no "charminglyrogue-ish" side to this Bond. It is a film devoid of any humor, andthat's a shame.Perhaps that's because he's after the people responsible for the deathof someone close to him (or that he loved). But this is all backstory,we don't see him being with whoever he supposedly cared about beforeshe was killed. And that's indicative of the whole movie: None of thecharacters have ANY character development, so we don't care about anyof them. They can live or die (and most die), but who cares? Thewriters really failed here with this script.The producers of this movie? They should all be forbidden from futureoutings of Bond films, and Ms. Broccoli should license this franchiseto producers who know how to make a good movie with a compelling story.Quit phoning this in, Ms. Broccoli. You're doing a serious disserviceto this franchise with "Quantum."

(2013-04-09 17:09:54)

Bring back Bond

It is tragic to see bond turned into just another Jason Straham movie. While I loved transporter I would never consider it a Bond. Long gone are the days were bond was classy, classically handsome, smooth, and able to maintain it all while being deadly. Hopefully in a few years they will have a good actor playing bond, and hopefully some better writers too.

Frederick Malouf

(2013-04-09 12:17:54)

Well, lots of people might not like it, but ...

I thought it was great. I am happy it is not a typical Bond. I see adirector who is fleshing out a character, hence the quiet bits, withgreat music. I like the fact that the villain is different; who saidthey have to confirm to the usual mad hats that are in previous bonds?Yes, Greene is not like the genius ruse in Casino Royale, but it is incontext with the how appallingly we are treating this world, and allthe short-sighted people going along with it. I like the fact that Bond did not destroy an Aston Martin to oblivionafter driving it for 30 seconds, and that the rest of the cars are beatup or electric, and that a great car does not make a character. Fields is great (fantastic voice), but what I love the most, after allthat, is how Matthis and his girlfriend/wife speak Italian. It isbecause it can be spoken in such a tone and yet with strength thatmakes it one of the best languages in the world, and why women love itso much. :)

Som K

(2013-04-06 23:49:02)

THe Gloomiest Bond Film Ever.

From a Bond Film we expect lot of action scenes, chivalry and a gooddose of chauvinistic humor. Quantum of Solace offers only on the storyfront an intellectually simulating service. However good a story is, aBond film is ultimately supposed to be lots of fun. In this title fromthe very beginning Bond is in a very sombre mood and throughout thefilm this environment of gloom pervades. Some people may like this but for me a Bond film is quintessentially toreflect lots of fast cars, babes and roller-coasting action. Even theaction scenes although shows lots of promise individually, falls flatwith out the Bond one-liners at the end. In the end a very gloomy andin in some cases severe cases of autophobia. We want our Bond back not this self-doubting killer on the loose. 5/10

Cindy-Savue-Welburn

(2013-04-06 07:16:40)

Painful

This was the most painful Bond movie ever. Nothing to captivate andkeep you going. I'm still wondering what the story was and what itmeant. What was the point of this movie, what was the plot, the story,what was going on in their minds when they wrote this movie. I watchedthe whole movie hoping to get something but nothing. The voting buttongives you the option between 1 to 10, I gave it a one, but it deserveda minus 100. Casino Royal was very good. At least it had something tokeep you wanting to go on watching it. even if Daniel Craig is buttugly, not the best looking Bond at all. You might want to rethink thewriting skills of your group at this point and consider changing JamesBond and put someone that fit the role.

cogleone

(2013-04-06 01:01:27)

A Crudfest of Dullness

This should have been the real title. After Casino Royale, we were allre-energised, we were all psyched for another instalment of Bond.However Quantum of Dullness just didn't deliver. It reverts back to theold Bond, you know, the ones that start quite well then get confusingand before its even half way through, you've lost interest and walkedout of the cinema. Viz once did an article "Guess the Bond film withLeonardo Dicaprio" family members all sat around on Christmas day,watching the Bond film on TV, nobody could guess which one it was,"Goldfinger" said Grandpa, "Octopussy" said Auntie Mavis, however, noneof this mattered because everybody was asleep by the first commercialbreak. Well this is a perfect analogy for the latest film.Confusing, dull, un-engaging? yes. Fit women, nice cars? yes. Makeloads at the box office? yes. Handpicked reviewers on a payout to writepositive reviews? yes. Ridiculous flimsy bad guy with outrageous globalplan? yes.

edwagreen

(2013-04-05 08:53:05)

More Like Quantum of Misery *1/2

A very disappointing film. Do you know why? As these films go on, theplot becomes extremely thin and all we get is high action. I know thatthe producers want to please the teens out there, but this is becomingridiculous.Dominick Green is supposed to be interested in global warming and oil.In reality, he wants to create a drought. What does he want to do,control Poland Spring? This is never fully explained. Instead we getexciting chase scenes on roof tops, boat chases and airplane sequences.Enough is enough already.Imagine, James Bond becomes suspect here and at one point Judy Dench,as M, has him suspended. It's long overdue for Ms.Dench to withdrawfrom this role. Even Lois Maxwell knew when to get out. As for DanielCraig, the man has a built in anger. He totally lacks the sex appeal ofa Roger Moore or Sean Connery. Craig would do in army training films asa commander.

JohnnyDancer

(2013-04-04 20:56:58)

My wife enjoyed it

My wife, for whom English is a second language, enjoyed this movie morethan I did for there wasn't too much dialogue to follow, just a lot ofcar chases, fight scenes, plane chases, boat chases, etc. Actually, itfelt as though about 70% of the screen time was taken up by running,jumping, shooting, punching, kicking, driving, and chasing. Though theaction scenes went into overkill, it did work out well for my wifebecause it didn't allow for the movie to develop an overly complexstoryline to follow.In all, I found this movie to be a very interesting inclusion into theBond series. Though I neither liked it or hated it, it was not what Ihave come to expect from a Bond movie.A very interesting inclusion into the Bond franchise indeed.

(2013-04-04 09:45:32)

Quantum of Sloppiness

I am beginning to think Paul Haggis is one of the most over-rated men in Hollywood. There's the hideously hyped message movie Crash. There's Million Dollar Baby, a sloppy tear-jerker that would have been nothing except Clint Eastwood made it worthwhile and elevated Hillary Swank's performance. And now he's managed to make James Bond a floppy limp hack with "Quantum of Solace."Do recall the shivering thrill you got watching Daniel Craig in Casino Royale? You won't get that here. Craig, as Bond, is a steely blank of an MI6 agent, forced to wander around the film with a purpose that is left murky. Is he out to avenge Vesper from the last movie? Is he out to find the Eco-Gangster Dominic Greene (played with all the villainy of a stuffed chicken)? Or is he a neutered ex-he-man forced to slither around waffling nationals who bend their morals whatever way the wind blows?Unfortunately, that's what you, the viewer, is left to fuddle with. "Quantum Of Solace" is a juggling act of bland, with even a crappy theme to alert you that you're in for something other than the usual mach 8 thrill ride. Q and his Bond gadgets, is absent. There's not even a decent Bond Girl. This is little more than a run-of-the-mill spy flick, barely average when "Casino" was flawless. Bring back Action Director Martin Campbell and leave the "message" muddling at home.

alumis73

(2013-03-30 20:34:23)

Lacking many things I would expect from a Bond movie

This movie didn't have much of the qualities I have seen in the bestBond movies. For example, every good Bond move should have somecharismatic villain. The guy should convince us that he is really a badguy and that he is a match for Bond. QOS didn't have this character.What else to say? There were some attempts of dark humor, I think, butit wasn't very funny. The plot was messy with a revenge theme thatdidn't fit well into the story. The action scenes were okay but nothingnot seen tons of times before. Despite the criticism there were somesuspense, it was mediocre, but nothing much worse than that. I wasdisappointed because I expected more after Casino Royal.

(2013-03-30 03:17:58)

Entertaining but Hardly Heroic. Bond in a World Consumed by Moral Chaos.

"Quantum of Solace" is the 22nd James Bond film, the second starring Daniel Craig, who continues his characterization of James Bond as an emotionally damaged, nearly sociopathic killer in the employ of MI6. The plotline follows through from "Casino Royale". Bond has kidnapped the infamous "Mr. White" of the mysterious "Quantum" organization, only to find that it is more ubiquitous and dangerous than MI6 imagined. Following a lead to Haiti, Bond finds himself in the company of Bolivian beauty Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko), a former intimate, now enemy, of a Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). Mr. Greene is president of an environmental organization that purchases or extorts land to exploit for profit or power. Now he is funding a coup in Bolivia in order to secure oil drilling rights for the CIA, whom he intends to double-cross. Bond's stoic exterior conceals an "inconsolable rage" at the death of his lover Vesper Lynd, making him even more a loose cannon than ever.The film takes its title from an otherwise unrelated short story by Ian Fleming. Just what "Quantum" is is still obscure, but at least "Quantum of Solace" is shorter and without the gaping holes in its plot that afflicted "Casino Royale". There is still an overly long, tedious foot chase near the beginning of the film, but the other action sequences are more compelling -if chaotic- than those in the previous film. What I find interesting is that the characterization of both Bond and the entire intelligence community is a radical departure from the first 20 Bond films. Bond is no longer the good guy. He is morally adrift, a licensed killer absorbed by grief, who cannot always tell his friends from his enemies. He's more of an anti-hero than a hero. Far from being fun or glamorous, sex now equals death. Every woman Bond beds meets a tragic, often gruesome, end at the hands of his enemies.We know very little about "Quantum", except that it does bad things, so it must be bad. The intelligence community is engulfed in moral chaos. The CIA occupies itself with securing oil reserves without so much as a nod to freedom or justice. Vengeance is the most common motivator. It almost makes Greene, who is motivated purely by profit, seem like a welcome relief. MI6's methodologies and trail of corpses leave much to be desired in the way of restraint and ethics. MI6 lacks any moral compass or even a clear objective. The enemy is nebulous, and it isn't clear what anyone is fighting for or what they hope to achieve. Even an environmental organization is just a front for a utility monopoly. It's like global gang warfare. Bond is both the agent of the chaos and its victim. In this world, when people don't have a clear enemy, they make one up, but it is never actually clear, and they are left with nothing to measure their own behavior by. The DVD (MGM 2009 single disc): The bonus features on the single disc edition are a music video (4 1/2 min) for "Another Way to Die" by Alicia Keys and Jack White, a theatrical teaser (2 min), and a theatrical trailer (2 min). Subtitles for the film are available in English and Spanish. Dubbing available in French and Spanish.

leeallen01

(2013-03-23 17:09:22)

It has the curse of a sequel, Never better than its predecessor

I have seen every Bond film from the beginnings' Casino Royale toCraig's era and have to say that out of the seven actors includingDavid Niven that have played Bond, Daniel Craig is, in my opinion, asgood as Sean Cannery's depiction. I have learnt from growing up withthe Bond franchise that there are two different types of Bond. You havethe interesting, suave, sexy, brooding killer that hooks you to thescreen and makes you feel in danger and they are played by Connery,Dalton and Craig. Then you have the hilarious, Witty, Sexy, cool andgadget, girls and Q filled Bonds played by Moore and Brosnan. I'm noteven going to get into Lazenby who quite frankly was the worst Bondever and although I did enjoy On Her Majesty's Secret Service, his Bondwas a joke that spoke to the camera. To get back on point I have to saythat I think Casino Royale is up there as one of the best Bond films ofall time with Diamonds are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me, Licence toKill and Tomorrow Never Dies, but Quantum of Solace, no offence toCraig was as bad as Octopussy. The cinematography was messy andhorrible, the action was bafflingly unwatchable and the story was, whenunderstood finally after further reading, absolutely patheticallysimple. Mark Forster should never have directed a high profile Filmsuch as this which requires a lot of responsibility. They say they'veremoved Bond's iconic trademarks like the Bond girls, the Gadgets, thecars, the Q's and the Money penny's because Bond has to earn themfirst, but I think they've also removed Bond and replaced him withJason Bourne. In my opinion the Bond movies should be made by Britishfilm makers, British directors and written by British writers becauseit's getting too Americanised and with no offence to America which isfantastic at making interesting and exhilarating Films, they're justnot good at making Bond films and therefore the next Bond should starCraig because he is fantastic, taking Bond right back to the beginningand making him vulnerably charming, but it should be an original storyof Bonds original iconic status, the double O agent, serving hermajesty and protecting her ideas and the world from evil, ironicallyscarred villains and why not in the mean time get some women, shootsome bad guys and use some ridiculously imaginative gadgets in theprocess, that make Bond what he is. To some up, Quantum of Solace isnot a Bond film and should never have been called one but it is a goodfilm, just not worthy of the Bond title. If you object then think aboutthis scenario, a film director called Mark Forster decides to make anaction film called Quantum of solace with the protagonist calledspecial agent Steven Johnson of the British Government, whilst MartinCampbell makes another epic Bond after his Casino Royale, which onewould make the big bucks as they say? The action film exactly the sameas quantum of solace but not called a James Bond film or Campbell'sfollow up Bond film called Ian Flemings 007 James Bond in… My votes onCampbell's.

fourGrand

(2013-03-23 08:23:34)

Bourne, James Bourne

I found the movie dull, boring, trite, contrived, convoluted, rushed, &terribly edited, directed and written. I see a lot of movies, probably2 a week in theatres, and this one was one of the first this year thatI was actually considering leaving early.The fact that they obviously tried to emulate the success of the Bourneseries was evident right off the bat. The opening car chase sequencewas horribly shot. Between shots of Bond's ear lobe, the steeringwheel, and his foot on the gas pedal, it was nearly impossible toreally understand what was happening. I kept thinking to myself: "Justshow me the road for 5 seconds!"Casino Royale rebooted the franchise. It took out all of thesuperfluous and gratuitous car chases, boat chases, and airplane chasesthat clogged the arteries of the Bond franchise after 21 films ofredundancy. Casino Royale was such a hit because it relied on a strongstoryline, plot, character development, and execution. Martin Campbell,who also directed the highly revered "Goldeneye" has the golden touch.Marc Forster, on the other hand, is totally clueless on how to shootaction sequences.I think, ultimately what killed this movie was the very weak plot line:Evil guy who helps dictators come to power, then surprises them bysecretly buying their major water supply – Pretty weak in my opinion.Neither bond girl was very interesting, especially the cardboard-likeAgent Fields, whose purpose for even being in the film other than to bea dead body covered in oil, is beyond me.It was also very convenient how they jumped out of a burning plane andparachuted right into a major plot device… "They've used dynamite…there's an underground lake here, Oh I get it now".The rotten cherry on the melted sundae was the Hydrogen-Fuel celledbuilding at the end. As soon as it was mentioned that the building theywere in was powered by unstable fuel cells, I thought "I wonder if thisbuilding will blow up. Will Bond have to save the girl in a burninginferno?" Unfortunately, I was right.We're back to normal here, if Casino Royale hadn't been made, and thiswas in it's place, there would have been little deviation from theabsurdity that the Bond films had become as of "The World is NotEnough" and "Die Another Day".An angry, vengeful Bond is a cool idea… but they wrote him like a grade3 would write the same character: sulking, angry, and expressionless.The CIA side-story was also quite boring, and Jeffery Wright, whoplayed a green, vulnerable, and human Felix Leiter in Casino Royale,was restricted to a maniacal, emotionless, robot in Quantum of Solace.This movie lost the human, realistic touch that was the driving forcein Casino Royale.And the whole "running and fighting through small alcoves andapartments in Italy" was done, three times over, in the Bourne series.

oneill-11

(2013-03-18 23:57:48)

An unfairly criticised work - dark, but excellent.

IMHO, many of the attacks on this film just don't stack up.Firstly - many have lamented that there were no great gadgets in QoS.Yes, gadgets are a "Bond tradition". However, this 'tradition' - andthe ever-increasing expectation of audiences to be amazed by Q's latestshenanigans - ultimately took the Bond films to some silly places. Asfar back the Thunderball jet pack, gadgets threatened to cross the linebetween secret agent and camp superhero.By the time we got to Die Another Day, technology once consideredfuturistic was everyday, so writers had to come up with the nutty"invisible Jaguar". (If you wanted to know where the invisible Jaguarwas, just listen - a Jaguar XKR makes a lot of noise.) QoS features'gadgets' of the embedded type that is more realistic in 2008. Forexample: Bond shoots piccies of bad guys on his mobile phone, which aretransmitted and face-matched by MI6, who patch in M and Bond for anupdate within moments. High tech, realistic, and genuinely useful foran agent who's a little too busy not getting shot to do his owngoogling.Secondly – to the complaint that the plot can't be followed, or isconfusing/silly etc.Marc Forster is very visual story teller, so much of the plot isrevealed with an image. He doesn't labour points or provide muchopportunity for characters to repeat the plot for those who weren'tpaying attention.But it is all there, if you watch the screen and listen. Admittedly,sometimes clues are delivered in a blink-and-miss-it fashion, but Iguess Forster is assuming that he's making a movie that will be watchedat the movies and that they'll actually watch it.And I can't agree that the evil scheme wasn't 'evil' enough. He wasdiverting water tables, creating droughts and starving wholepopulations so that water, could be withheld, controlled and sold by aninternational crime syndicate, through oppressive murdering (andrapist) dictators. Not evil enough!?! Thirdly – the "everythinghappened too fast" complaint. I admit that the editing pace of theaction sequences can be dizzying, and that this trend in editing needsto be checked. But they are usually short, which means breathing spaceis given to recover.The opening car chase has come under particular fire, so let's justbreak it down.Fly in over the Lake Garda, Italy, where Casino Royale ended. Weapproach a distant tunnel. Ominous sound track combines with flashes ofguns, bullets, wheels, and the steely eye of Bond. Suddenly with a snapgear change we are in the tunnel. No music, just engines, gun shots andcrunching metal. Yes, this section is dizzying and confusing. But Isuspect that driving an Aston Martin through a narrow tunnel whilstbeing shot at, rammed by a truck, and performing a 180 turn at speed,is also.It is so immediate. We are "in the car", people are getting killed andthat our hero is in real danger of dying himself. When was the lasttime that happened in a Bond film? Exit the tunnel as the chase musicstarts up and into the quarry. A fast, staccato car chase ends suddenlywith the shooting of the last car. The Aston Martin then arrives at theMI6 safe house, smashed and missing a door. The boot is opened, thereason for the deadly chase is revealed, the link to where we left offin Casino Royale is clear. Cue credits.This whole process takes around 3 minutes and establishes the gritty,dark and vengeful world of QoS perfectly.Finally – the "he's not Bond, he's too dark, no sense of humour, notenough women" thing.There is humour throughout this film. "Tosca isn't for everyone"."We're teachers on sabbatical who have just won the lottery." "Can youhelp me find the stationary?" OK – there's no lines like, "Christmasonly comes once a year" – but do we need them? And to the idea thatCraig is just too cold and vicious to be Bond… Well, Bond has alwaysbeen a bit of a bastard, it's just that this one looks like he reallycan carry out his threats. He is darker because he is recovering fromthe loss of Vesper, but he is not heartless. Look at the way Craigplays the final scene, particularly his delivery of the line, "it's OK,I know you do." With his face and voice he is walking the perfect linebetween being absolutely menacing to the Quantum baddie, whilst showinga sympathy for the Canadian agent who, like him, has now beenheart-broken thanks to this man.And that's the thing about QoS, there is a subtlety to it. The story istold visually and Craig can convey, with a look, more than a hundredglib Roger Moore lines could.It's not a Bond for those who want everything spelt out for them,followed by bonks with firecrackers in the background (literally).If you want a contemporary Bond film that is, perhaps, true to howFlemming would create Bond in today's world, then try QoS. Rememberingthat it is a direct sequel to Casino Royale will help your enjoyment.If you want all gizmos and puns then just watch Die Another Day again,with its invisible cars, ice palaces, power rangers suits and jokesabout MoneyPenny sticking cigars in her orifice. You're welcome to it.

gsedlik

(2013-03-18 05:37:56)

Are the critics on crack?

OK, so I went to see Quantum of Solace with my dad the other night. Iwent in with low expectations because of all the reviews I've seen. Allof them are saying it was such a disappointment, how the script wasterrible, and how Craig was the only reason the movie was passable. Icompletely disagree with all of the critics. Yes, the movie was not asgood as Casino Royale, but it was up there. I came out of the theateramazed at how great the action was, and how the script really delveddeeply into the issues of today's world. Craig was great, Judi Denchwas great as always, Mathieu Amalric was incredible as the villain andthe rest of the cast just added to the solidarity of the wholeperformance. The opening car chase was a bit confusing but other thanthat all of the action was flawless and realistic. Even though it wasshorter than Casino Royale, it still had great flow and kept me on theedge of my seat the entire time. Definitely deserves an 8 out of 10,and I can't wait to see Daniel Craig in Bond 23, whatever it will becalled.