*** Official QUANTUM OF SOLACE Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Brad M]

Caught a screening this evening here in Tulsa. I enjoyed the last one and thought that this one was a better movie. I do wish I had watched Casino right before going in to see Solace since I got a bit confused at the end. My only complaint is that there is too much of the shaky camera in the action scenes. It is hard to see what is going on. Fun movie!

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Quantum of Solace". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

I enjoyed this one more than "Casino Royale" too. I'm looking forward to future films with Craig. He's fast becoming my favorite James Bond.






Crawdaddy

 

[Shad R]

I really liked Casino Royale, and I like bond movies in general. My hopes were way high after the bar was set on the previous installment.
My high hopes were shot down quickly.
The movie is all action, no character development. I didn't care about the bond girl, the villians, or even Bond in this one.
The action scenes are haphazardly put together, sometimes I couldn't even tell what was happening. And apparently, the villians lair has zero guards, and is made of paper mache soaked in gassoline. I say this because EVERYTHING inside blows up.
As for the plot...something about water.
After Casino put Bond in somewhat realistic situations, and everthing played out from point A to point B, this one is over the top. It represents everything I started to dislike about Bond. Over the top action scenes where Bond isn't even hurt. I won't give anything away, but he must be the Terminator to walk away from some of this stuff. The other movie established that Bond could be hurt, this one throws that out the window.
There are a few scenes that were cool, but for the most part it was a HUGE dissapointment.

C-

 

[Raul Marquez]

Bond, James ....Bourne?

Saw the new 007 film last night and though it's a very well made film, IMHO it just doesn't have the necessary Bond "flavor" needed for a 007 film.

My first disappointment came with the missing gunbarrel sequence with Bond walking, firing into the camera, and the red blood curtain falling down... (yes, I know that a "version" of this is on the closing credits... but again, this is something we expect and want at the beginning of a Bond film).

Daniel Craig as Bond is a great actor and to me he is one of the best actors to fill in 007's shoes, right beside Sean Connery.

Judi Dench's role as M seemed like a lot of her scenes ended up in the cutting room floor. She just wasn't as forceful here as in previous films probably due to this.

The title song by Jack White and Alicia Keys, "Another Way To Die"..... UGGHHH! (need I say more).... definitely not a memorable Bond theme.

The opening credit sequence was so lame..... Maurice Binder, we miss you!

The action seemed like that of a Bourne film, in fact the opening sequence reminded me so much of THE BOURNE SUPREMACY it was disturbing.

The villain is disposed of basically off camera, and you don't get the payoff you expect at the end.

There are some nice touches though... without giving away any spoilers, look for some references (direct or indirectly) to previous Bond films including GOLDFINGER and LIVE AND LET DIE.

Also, I'm just wondering how someone who hasn't seen CASINO ROYALE will react to this film with all the references to Vesper, since this film is basically a continuation of the previous one.

Just my 2 cents...

Raul

 

[Frank Ha]

I saw this Monday night. I watched Casino Royale before going to the theater and I'm glad I did. It made it easier to understand and follow.

I thought the movie was just alright. The story was pretty good, when taking into account that it continues where Casino Royale ended. But mainly, I had a problem with the quick cuts during the action sequences. I agree 100% with you, Raul. Several times I felt like I was watching a Bourne movie. That's not something you want to be thinking when you see a Bond movie. If not for that, I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more.

 

[PatrickDA]

- Well below the level of "Casino Royale."

- First half felt like a Brosnan Bond film. Bad deal.

- I liked the title song a great deal, while the main credit sequence to go along with the song was only so-so.

- They took the quick editing of the Bourne series to a different level. Sometimes that worked, but mostly it didn't.

- Craig wasn't Bond, but the Terminator.

- Lame villain and Bond girls.

- Very nice locations!

- I loved the Tosca sequence in Austria. Best part of the entire film. Bond and Greene locking in on each other...wow! That was a great moment.

- This one felt LONGER than "Casino Royale" to me.

- Ending felt...lackluster. Not the Russia part (that worked), but the hotel being blown up bit just didn't have any kick to it.

- B+ overall

- Mostly, I was shocked by how common the action sequences were. NONE OF THEM STOOD OUT. Think of the opening of "Casino Royale" with all the jumping around that construction site or the airport battle. Those stood out. I can remember the different movements of those sequences. "QOS" just didn't have much to remember. It plowed right over and through any meaningful or well executed moments.

 

[ErichH]

Agree - Not much of a plot here, unless it's Charles Bronson going after the Bilderberg Group. There are some fun things to see, but this retooling of Bond is empty on paper.

The Ms. Fields Goldfinger Ripoff is really lame.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Meh, nothing more than a poorly edited standard action film. They've excised nearly everything that makes a Bond film a Bond film in the first place, and unlike Casino Royal there are no reasons for the changes and omissions.

Now--despite it's poor editing, it isn't a bad action movie, I'd say it was a pretty good action movie. But it's not a Bond film so fuck you too movie producers.

 

[Steve Christou]

Disappointed by some aspects of it but on the whole rather enjoyed it. It does feel like the scrappy middle of a trilogy, hopefully the next one will bring back some of the old 007 magic.

I saw it last night, here's my review which was posted elsewhere on the forum -

The film hits the ground running with a frenetic car chase, followed by a foot chase and more car chases and boat chases and plane chases and explosions and on and on for 100mins. The shortest Bond film barely pauses for breath before another action scene begins, the film doesn't feel short because it's packed with incident, you get your money's worth.

This must be the first time in a Bond movie that 007 doesn't utter his famous line "Bond, James Bond" and you don't hear the Bond theme until the end credits! What is happening to the Bond series? The franchise has to evolve, change with the times but the Bond films weren't just about action and incredible stunts, they existed in a fantasy spy world of crazy gadgets, fast cars, gorgeous girls, exotic locations, throwaway quips and nutjob pussy-stroking maniacal villains.

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/6/67/htf_imgcache_36428.jpeg] [/url]

In Quantum of Solace 007 is out for revenge and kills everything in his path, an almost indestructible MI6 terminator. In one scene Bond is taken away by 4 armed guards, they get in an elevator. Bond suddenly goes berserk and in a blur of furious motion knocks all four out cold, Jason Bourne would have been impressed. Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond for these films, he is totally believable as a cold blooded killing machine, but I hope he lightens up in the next one.

New Bond girl Olga Kurylenko is sexy and pretty but isn't as memorable as previous Bond babes, she isn't in enough of the film to make much of an impression. The main villain Mathieu Amalric bulges his eyes a lot but joins a growing roster of feeble Bond villains going all the way back to 1981's For Your Eyes Only. Where are the Scaramangas? The Largos? The Blofelds? Maybe in the next installment we'll finally get to see who's been pulling the strings on the snivelling smarmy villains seen in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace and it'd be great if we see him sitting at the head of a long table, bald head, scarred face, stroking a white cat and ordering his minions to "Kill Bond now!"

As a James Bond film it's a little disappointing, as a thrilling action movie it has few equals. 4 out of 5.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

I enjoyed it. Its just a hair below CR. And the plot was fine - the no plot comments are puzzling.

One thing for sure - Craig owns the Bond role.

 

[mattCR]

I must be the only person here who was actually dissappointed in this. In fact, very dissappointed.

"Quantum of Solace" wasn't really -bad-, I mean there are far worse things that I've seen. And it had some good action. But it wasn't a Bond film. Yes, characters named, etc. etc. but it just wasn't a Bond film. It was a Bourne movie, pure and simple, except in my mind, it never achieved the kind of pulse-pounding that any of the Bourne films had, and because it was a Bond film, it seemed really out of sorts.

Gone are the typical cute Bond quips, asides, and in jokes. Gone are the cool gadgets, the super spy fun. In is the mercenary killer type character.

I realize this is an attempt to modernize Bond as a different kind of character then he has been in the past. And I find the role to be very well played here. But at a script level, this felt like a real letdown because it simply became "another action movie". A good action movie, not a great action movie, and when compared to the movies it is trying to emulate, it just doesn't succeed as well.

Bond at the best provides that escapist fun that this film sorely lacks. In the end, what this film really is could be summed up (IMHO) as:

A Poor man's Bourne film with a less interesting bad guy, a plot which isn't as involving or really as easy to understanding, editing that looks off, the villain is really lame and that makes motivation lacking.

It's kind of a waste (IMHO) because of how good Craig is, and when on the action is good.. but it can't salvage the rest of the fishwrap it's combined with.

C-

 

[Patrick Sun]

I will have to side with the "disappointed" crowd on QoS. I really like Marc Forster as a director, but he's totally wrong for the Bond franchise. He makes the mistake of amping up the chase scenes, but forgetting that these characters are human beings, not just time-fillers for an uninteresting thread-bare plot. There are quite a few brutal action scenes that need to show us that Bond is still human and not so Terminator-like because once Bond dispatches people, he just never seems to take a deep breath and say to himself "Blimey, I could have been killed..." and just moves on to the next plot point far too efficiently when no one is supposedly around him, it's like Bond is even aware of the camera following his every move, and afraid to not look cold and ruthless. Also, for some odd reason, I just find Daniel Craig's chemistry with practically anyone in the cast to be nill and lacking in charm (save for Agent Fields). Perhaps playing Bond with Terminator-like mannerisms just kills whatever chemistry that could develop between the characters, even though they almost achieve some chemistry between Bond and Mathis, but it was too little too late.

The main villain, Dominic Greene, just isn't quite menacing enough, and far too uninteresting given his end game in the film, as his part in the story development is simply poor and uninvolving. I did like Camile, played by Olga Kurylenko, as she and Bond were simply two ships passing in the night, without the requisite port dockage (probably a first in the Bond franchise). But Camile's own little story never quite meshes well with Bond's own personal vendetta following the events of Casino Royale, and again, story development is rather boring.

I did laugh when I found out Agent Fields' first name in the credits: Strawberry
.

I want Q and the gadgets back in the Bond franchise, I need them. I am not all that enamored with Judi Dench as M, lose her if we have to in the next installment, I won't care. The theme song is at the bottom of the list for me in the Bond franchise as well.

Overall, the 105-minute running time felt like 125 minutes because the film drags when it's not involved with a chase scene, and that's not a good thing for a film attempting to re-vitalize the James Bond films for a new generation.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.

 

[todd stone]

VERY VERY bad movie

 

[MattFini]

I liked it a hell of a lot more than I was expecting ... but it took a while.

As the film started I immediately abandoned what little hope I had for this movie. The opening car chase is, without a doubt, the very worst pre-credits sequence of any Bond film. It's so incredibly poorly edited that it's impossible to care about what was happening. And rolling into an absolutely terrible Bond theme song (the worst, in fact) didn't help matters much, either.

And things got worse from there: a foot chase and brutal fist fight that is devoid of ANY tension. Not only is it overedited to the point of incomprehension, but Marc Forster cannot resist getting pretentious with the material: cutting away to an equestrian race amidst the action. Are you freaking kidding me, Forster? If I even needed any more evidence that he was the WORST pick for this Bond film I got it in spades.

There isn't another Bond film out there as poorly directed as this.

And that's my problem with the film. Not one action sequence here is as good as anything in Casino Royale. Things DO improve in the second half with some fairly exciting setpieces (particularly the climax) but it's largely unimpressive.

Thankfully this film does begin to feel like a Bond film in the final third. From the opera house on (save for that terrible action scene here) we're in Ian Fleming territory (well, with the exception of that airplane chase I suppose, but what the hell ... I liked it) and I quickly got into the film. It took on a License to Kill vibe which was impossible to ignore and I feel like it's all the better for it. By the time we got to the final scene in the film, I was LOVING the movie. Too bad it was over by then.

I did really enjoy QoS, but it took a while. Let's get that gun barrel back to the opening (why was it ever removed?) and kick Forster to the curb. This film needed a little more breathing room around the action (100 minutes really was too damn short) and a 2 hour running time would've made it feel a little more 'paced', I think.

Glad to see Bond is still the boss and, I'll be honest, this is better than anything in any of the Jason Bourne flicks. You can see a little bit of the influence here, but not enough to bother me.

 

[Chris Atkins]

8/10

I was a bit disappointed in this one. Most of the others have already covered the issues I had with the film. Most of all, it felt WAY longer than it's run time, and not in a good way.

I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it either.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Have to agree with the praise and the criticisms. Not nearly as good as CR, but better than average as an action movie.

Too much action. Which sounds crazy from me, but too much action

Craig was exceptional, and his non-action scenes saved the film from itself. I was hoping for much more than this after CR, but it still trounces the last three Brosnan Bonds.

7.5/10,
Chuck

 

[Joe Karlosi]

CASINO ROYALE was much better than this run-of-the-mill entry. You know, it's getting really tired, this formula of Bond always being his own rebellious man and figuring "to hell with what M says". It's okay as a departure, but it's feeling like the same old same old. I just didn't get the feeling there was anything special here or anything I haven't already seen a dozen times over. Typical.

The action sequences were very badly shot, and I'd agree with reviewers who had difficulty focusing on what was supposed to be happening in them much of the time. The whole thing also felt overlong.

I also don't approve of the classic "007" opening gun barrel logo being relegated to the end credits...

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

I think QoS was very good. The action sequences were fantastically shot, with the section on the scaffolds inside the building and the ropes swinging etc being the very best.

I am not sure I understand the criticisms of no plot, for me the more layered idea, with the central and focused 'revenge' element playing inside a grander good-guys vs bad guys theme - then having some of those lines blurred or at least complicated, being very satisfying. This film had energy and, while far less humor then the 'old days', I feel like this is exactly the kind of Bond movie of these times. I would give it a solid A.

I think the director did very well, adding his sense to the locations, with nice little touches here and there, just a quick shot that clearly evoked more than just the beauty of the locations, but the essence of them to. Not overstated, nor complete, but enough to stand out (for me, at least). I am very much looking forward to watching again! Daniel Craig is darn near perfect as Bond.

 

[Chad R]

After reinvigorating Bond for a new generation, "Quantum of Solace" takes a small step backwards. As the new film jumps right into it with an elaborate car chase, the film's foremost flaw becomes readily apparent, i.e. Marc Forster is not an action director. It's a special skill set to be able to orchestrate a solid action piece, and Forster just doesn't have that yet. The scenes are staged well, but Forster shoots too close and then compensates by over editing them. It's a big old mess. Not one of the elaborate car chases, boat chases, or even airplane chase is half as exciting as the far cheaper stairwell fight in "Casino Royale." I never thought I'd say this, but Martin Campbell is sorely missed here.

When the film slows down, it starts to pick up steam. Forster is good with actors and does great building the relationship between Bond and M (the Bond girl in this is practically a throw away).

As for the ending...

But then the film falls back on the standard Bond cliche, "highly combustible evil lair." Why would there be a high class hotel in the middle of the desert? And unstable fuel cells? It's like some poor shlup built the place specifically to blow up. Even worse was the dull Roman Polanski clone actually held his own fighting a highly trained agent. The climax was laughable.

Overall, it was a passable Bond film, but it's not a worthy follow-up to "Casino Royale."