James Bond – you’ll have to remember his Christian name as the arrogant cad neglects to announce it – is grieving the loss of lover and betrayer Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). You’d best remember the plot – and Lynd’s necklace – of the earlier film, too, as director Forster throws us immediately, eye-smackingly into the frenetic activity and globe-traversing travel that is the angry, increasingly unorthodox, ‘soul-destroyed’ world-saving agent’s way of dealing with betrayal, grief and loss.
Eight minutes of highly impressive, parallel-edited, SFX-assisted, stunt-laden action are up before the ears, eyeballs and brain get their first momentary repose. Before then, our hero chases down Mr White in the Aston dodgem-car through Alpine tunnels. Cough or blink and you’ll miss how our bold spooks link the last film’s Le Chiffre to bug-eyed faux environmentalist Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a destabiliser of US backyard governments with a laughable, pudding-basin haircut-ed sidekick. Almost immediately, he hops, skips and jumps across Siena’s roofs and the horse-loving, harlequin-ed Palio crowds – and we soon follow Bond ‘running wild’ from the palatial villas of Italy to the slums of Haiti, the neo-Reifenstahl opera houses of Vienna, and the menacingly beautiful, otherworldly moonscapes and deserts of Bolivia.
So much dash, flash and thrill – so many boat chases, tight rope-dangling fight scenes, bi-plane dogfights, architectural flourishes and flat-table computer displays – there’s scant time left for character, let alone, story, fun, seduction, humour or wit. You can sense the older, traditionalist viewers wanting to go home early to take their nostalgia pills. True, there are some cute one-liners – presumably the product of Paul Haggis’s polish of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade’s screenplay taken from producer Michael G Wilson’s first inspirational treatment and itself repeatedly pencil-marked by Forster and Craig.
Also, new Bond Woman Olga Kurylenko is impressive as 007’s Latin helpmeet Camille. But, strange for a supposedly ‘humanising’ franchise, Craig’s Bond comes dangerously close to being a cipher himself: only a ‘Bourne’-again, action superhero could perform his physical feats.
It’s a cynical movie, too: half the Brit agents are double and all the US spies seem untrustworthy – save Felix Leiter, of course, whom the excellent Jeffrey Wright reprises in arguably the film’s sole sympathetic, low-key performance. (Though, intriguingly, Judi Dench’s ‘M’ has gone all maternal – couldn’t she be renamed ‘SM’, for Surrogate Mum?) Okay, maybe real life is, pace Hobbes, brutal, nasty and short – like this movie. But can’t we sneak in the odd moment for some occasional quiet conversation, maybe even a leisurely martini or a game of baccarat, even if we can’t afford luxury rail travel or – God forbid – some protracted, guiltless sex? Go on, Bond, next time, indulge yourself a little more. We like to watch.
|Release date:||Friday October 31 2008|
Cast and crew
|Screenwriter:||Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade|
Average User Rating
3.5 / 5
- 5 star:90
- 4 star:12
- 3 star:20
- 2 star:19
- 1 star:41
Great action scenes: Rubbish plot. Bolivia has supplies of Lithium which will be vital if hybrid cars ever take on. Instead the plot centres (or rather makes a feeble reference) around controlling the countries water supplies. A wasted opportunity. It's almost if they needed two directors- one for the big bangs and the other to work on the storyline.
There is only one word for this film.... shocking.... i felt physically sick watching this. Sick of the the appalling action that is shot so close and chaotically that you can't see what's going on, sick of a weak and feeble storyline, sick of the theme tune, sick of the wooden acting. And the worst thing is I love Bond, I loved Casino Royale, I loved the new look Bond. I've read all the Bond books and loved the old look Bonds as well. But the director of this film should be put down for what he's done here. There aren't even any positives to try and off set the huge negatives. I walked into the cinema with huge expectations and came out feeling the weight of the world on my shoulders. Don't watch this film even out of curiosity to see how bad it is - it will leave you scarred!
Do you think, maybe DrE ,that you are taking the Bond franchise a little too seriously? No I haven't read the books, but I have never been attracted to them. There are so many more interesting things to read about. And as for Bond being a well rounded, 3D character in any of the films, don't make me laugh. His has always been a fantstical, cartoon-like world on screen. The films are merely an entertaining diversion for a couple of hours (and with an Unlimited card for Cineworld, pretty cheap thank you - highly recommended) In this respect, this one did what it was billed to do. Not a great film; I never said it was, but I quite liked seeing a colder side to him. By the end, he has got it out of his system. Imagine this: you are a trained killer and your lover is murdered, would you not lose it for a while? He has finally let someone get close (after losing his parents at a young age - thanks for that) and what happens? Fits if you ask me. The next one will be better. That's called optimism. Chill out, it's just a Bond film. Noone died.
The next one will be better! What a sad mindless automaton must DV be â€“ passing over money to watch a poorly scripted, poorly directed movie, planning hopes on a more acceptable film next time. Read the other reviews DVâ€¦ Read the booksâ€¦ Bond is supposed to be University educated, hyper-intelligent, calculated, and super-suave and who puts brain before brawn. He was trained to be a secret agent from a teen, being recruited into the service after his parents were killed supposedly in a mountaineering accident. The current re-imagined Bond simply does not fill this mould. What we have on screen in this new adaptation is essentially a 40 year old street-kid that has been taught to kill like a thug and not a trained assassin. Between fights all he seems to do is a lot of running whilst developing a bit of an Oedipus complex for M â€“ god help us if he beds her in the next Bond movie (potentially entitled a Bucketful of Puke)!!! His character has about as much depth as a puddle! This is how I imagined Bond to be portrayed if Vinnie Jones had won the role - which was apparently on the cards for a while. For a film to be successful, the producers, directors, scriptwriters and cast must give the audience what they want and must live up to and preferably exceed their expectations. Daniel Craig could make a very good Bond, but the scriptwriters and directors have let us down â€“ big time â€“ and Barbara Broccoli has let Bond fans down the most. DV, itâ€™s not about being stuck in the 70s, itâ€™s about the continuation of a legacy â€“ 22 films over 46 years based on a single set of characters is a pretty amazing achievement. About the only thing they are trying to keep true to are the Maurice Binder style of opening titles. Daniel Kleinman did an admirable job on these throughout the Brosnan years but his last two have been below par. Itâ€™s just a shame to see the legacy whither.
I'm a big baby who doesn't like change. I want everything to stay the same as it was in the 70's. And I can't understand a couple of very simple plot-lines. Perhaps I'm autistic? Waah waah waah! Reasonable film. Next one will be better. This one sets up the Bond character and gives him more depth. So to speak. Cool tune from The White Keys too. Give it a go.
Unfortunately this has to be the worst film of the Bond franchise - even worse than OHMSS. Bond is meant to be much more than a Bourne-style action hero and regardless of how ludicrous a plot, the story needs to have more at stake than keeping Boliviaâ€™s poor thirsty and charging them 20c a litre for Quantumâ€™s supply. But then again, let's digress to the weaker plot of Casino Royaleâ€¦ Bond must play cards to bring down a villain? Why not just bash â€œMr Iâ€™m so scary because I bleed tears out of one eye and canâ€™t be bothered to get it fixedâ€� le Chiffre over the head, take him back to MI6 HQ and torture him until he talked then either kill him (new Bond) or put him into a situation where he could easily escape just to get killed at the last minute (old Bond)! Wouldnâ€™t that have saved you 90 minutes of your life two years ago! Bring back a real Bond: suave, sophisticated, calculated, brutal, intellectual. Bring back the gadgets, bring back Ms Monneypenny. And for Godâ€™s sake bring back Q â€“ and not a pathetic version as played by John Cleese â€“ how about a more eccentric version ala Stephen Fry or a Desmond Llewelyn clone as in Richard Briers. Also, how about writing some decent opening music! Remember when the Bond themes used to get into the top 10? The last two themes appeared to be sung by constipated cats with anorexia. Overall a poor film that left me thinking why I bothered sitting though the 116 minutes of shaky CGI enhanced (using the term poorly as the shakes were probably put in to hide all of the bad CGI) footage â€“ It could just have easily been (perhaps should have been) packaged as a Bourne film and enjoyed for what it isâ€¦ an action film and not a Bond film. Before starting on the next movie let's hope the writers and directors sit back and watch some of the Bond classics - Connery and Moore - and get a sense of what a good Bond movie should be!
THIS IS A BRILLIANT FILM.. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE THAT CASINO ROYALE WAS THE FIRST BOND ( SO 2 SPEAK) THIS IS JUST FOLLOWING THAT.. SO YES Q IS NOT FULLY ESTABLISHED.... THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOND AND Q IS IN ITS EARLY STAGE... THIS IS LITERALLY FOLLOWING OF DIRECTLY FROM CASINO.. BOND HAD MADE A DECISION..1)THAT HE WAS GONNA KICK SOME ASS FOR VENGANCE OF HIS LAST LOVE AND 2) THAT HE WAS GONNA BE TOTALY DISATTEACHED FROM FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS... SO THIS FILM IS ABOUT ACTION!!!!! AND RIGHLTY SO.. IM SURE ALL YOURE LOVED GADJETS AND CHEESY ONE LINERS ARE COMING YOURE WAY FOR ALL YOU CRITICS OUT THERE.... THIS BOND IS ( IN MY OPINION... THE BEST!!!!
i like supercol. and the rest as he said are a waste of time and supercilious snobs with pseudo linguistic stash
It is the worst James Bond to date. There are no usually bond catphrases and the bond music doesnt appear to the end. They have changed it too much so to other James Bond phanatics, this film isnt worth it!!!
After reading the time out reviews for all the films at my local multiplex and the reviews of Quantum of Solace by posters on this site I can only conclude that you are all a bunch of miserable b******s! The former obviously have nothing better to do with their English degrees than wrap themselves up in self aggrandizing cynicism and overly florid syntactical structures (see I have an English degree too) whilst the latter seem unable to enjoy any of the well thought out modernisations and spectacular stunt scenes of the modern Bond movie.I think they would all be better off staring at a big girl in a white bikini or gold spray paint for a couple of hours. time wasters.
Experienced 30 minutes of torture watching this movie before walking out. The volume was unbearable. My wife held her hands to her ears. The script none existent. A waste of Daniel Craig's ability.Boring , mindless. Enjoyed most of the bond films made; I wasn't expecting a journey into Lawrence Olivier territory but aside of the section of my brain that enjoys mindless excapism there is a need to feel some involement, some engagement with any film. On this occasion the feeling was that of being in a spin dryer at 110 decibels observing a computer game on fast forward. Save your money. There must be something on T.V.?
Not terrible, but really disappointing considering how many good Bond films have been made over the years. Missed the humour, characters and panache of the older films, this was just 1-dimensional action sequences, so badly shot it almost gave me a migrane.
What a bad name - Strawberry Fields! Oh, My. God. Her (fictional) parents have a lot to answer for! And I thought my name (Cassandra Loryn Atkins) was a bad name! No wonder she didn't want to tell James her full name, I think he would've bust a rib laughing! Who the hell calls their daughter Strawberry, especially if their last name is Fields. I would sue. Seriously. Hahahahahahahaaaa! As for the film, it was okay.
This is one of the most appallingly boring Bond Films I have ever seen. No humour, No 'Q' with the gadgets, Poor Dialogue a script written on the back of a matchbox and camerawork that looks like it was taken by an amatuer with a camcorder. And what a finale! In a hotel in the middle of a desert! Original I suppose, but nothing too lavish! If they don't give Daniel Craig something better than this, he will land up as the next Bond on the preverbial Bond-Heap.
Best Bond film for ages: gritty and real, beautifully styled and lit, with thrilling action and subtle emotional resonance.
I must say did not like the last one , but this one I must admit was quite good. Nothing like the old type of james bond that I remember( alas 50) but in its own right it is quite refreshing and the story is very good I would say give it a chance you mihjt be surprrised I was and the action shots are really very good I must admit miss some of the gadgests but hey we all have to move on
I would direct any readers to the comment made by J.W. Riely - the report here is absolutely spot on...
Bang,crash, wallop. Charmless Bond. No story line. No humour. Minimal dialogue. Wished I'd gone to the pub instead.
Absolute rot. Dire, boring, wooden. The worst Bond film I have ever seen. Apparently I fell asleep for 10 minutes in the middle of it. Bring back a good story, a non-pretentious, manly, chasrismatic and comedic Bond - that would be a good start.
I went and saw this on tuesday (18th novemeber) and i can honestly say that this was the worst of the "blockbuster" movies i have seen this year. An impossible to follow story line, awful theme song, and a frankly unlikeable James Bond. DOnt get me wrong, Bond should always have a hard - even cruel edge to him, but there should be something about him that you instinctively like. DC did this really well in Casio Royall, but here the character becomes amazingly 1 dimensional. Apart from that, my biggest grievance is that we only heard the word Quantum (referring to the shadowy organisation) towards the end of the movie - explained to bond, not to us!!! Please go back to the methods and style used in the Connery and Brosnan films, dry wit, danger, gadgets and hot chicks - not just explosions and guns.
Very disapointing ,don't bother .Casino Royal was great but I'm afraid this had far too many speeded up silly scenes where you could'nt see what was going on.The worst Bond film ever I hope when they make the next one they go back too BASICS !!!
gripping action movie. lacks the hi-fi nature & the grandness of usual Bond movies. Daniel Craig is good, but he is not a bond material.
DC carries the film and is great. There weren't enough peaks and troughs but I was happy to sit and watch it anyway. One biq question. Er, WHY did the big building blow up at the end? Is it me or have they got so used to incliding it they forgot to write in an explanation?
all those people who call themselves 'true bond lovers' are talking out of there rear ends.....the purpose of the latest two bond films, CR and QoS, is to give us the background to how bond became bond. Casino Royale portrayed the human origins of Bond - falling in love, being sickened by his first kill, and generally almost mucking it all up by being overconfident. Now QoS gives us Bonds journey through anger and vengence as he slowly develops into the Bond we all know and love - the cold, calculating, suave, deadly, womanising machine that will happily tell you a joke before sleeping with your wife and then slitting your throat, all in the name of british security. These fillms ARE totally true to Ian Flemings visoin of Bond and hats off to the directors. To the rest of you - go back and read the books and try again to understand Bond!
I can't believe how over "hyped" this move was. I love Bond films and even like Daniel Craig as the "new" Bond... but this movie just stunk! This is not a Bond film, it's a second rate attempt to be Jason Bourne. I wish I had walked out, but I kept looking for something to redeem it... no such luck. The opening scene is the best and it's all down hill from there - and that's not saying much either because the opening is also one of the worst in Bond history. I like that they are trying to "rough" up the Bond character a bit and make him a little more human... but this is rediculous! In my top 5 worst Bond movies ever!
No Miss Moneypenny, no "Q"; no customised Aston Martin with hi-tech mods; no decisive "M" reassuring us that the country is in safe hands; no continuity; no reference to Bond's educated "Britishness"; in short, no point. He could have been any skilled assassin working for any agency in the world. This film won't win any new Bond fans and will alienate established ones. What a wasted opportunity! And next time could we have some variety in the action sequences? The "Bourne" style jerkiness is fine for one or two, but what about variety? Some distance shots to give us an overview; some slow-motion so we can wonder at his athleticism; split screen so we can see what the arch foe is doing while his minions are being slaughtered - and more dialogue please! Our hero is multi-faceted he's not a one-dimensional killing machine. Where's Ian Fleming's creation? He's not in this film....
This was so disappointing. I love Bond films but this film was appalling. I hate the close up action where you can't see what is going on. What is this new way of filming - close up action, action and more action, it is ridiculous - at least they've stopped making them 3 hours long - I really would have walked out then! There is little continuity to the very lame story. Where's Moneypenny these days? Unfortunately, it was absolute rubbish in my opinion. If they bring out the next one in the same way I certainly won't be going.
WORST BOND FILM EVER FROM CAST TO STORYLINE TO DIRECTION TO EDITING. EVEN THE THEME TUNE WAS HORRIBLE. IT WAS NOT A BOND FILM. IT WAS SOME SECOND RATED ACTION/VIOLENT FILM.
The quality of QoS will only known twenty years from now when we look back and remember the depression of 2008, Bond has stood the test of time reminding us of our strenghths and weaknesses in a snapshot of time. remember we all get older but Bond is timeless.Long may he last.
i waited a long time for this movie. i never imagined james bond to be this cruel.. the bond theme revolves around, romance, action, humour, gadgets and so on.. but this one was just more vengeance and utter violence.. this movie was made just for the sake of it... i guess just for the profit.. i feel before they make another bond movie, they should think of the audience especially the james bond fans.... this movie was utter nonsense and a total waste of time.....
I think there are two different groups of people posting here. Those who were happy to watch any old mindlessly violent, slam blam, bang bang kill, spill and thrill adventure movie and then thoese who actually enjoy a James Bond movie. This movie, QOS, is definitely the former but all too lacking in the humour subtle dialogue and varied pace of a true Bond picture. The fact that you had to be able to remember the plot of Casino Royale, a movie watched over a year ago, in order to make any sense of what was going on, did not help at all. I aggree that the editing and fast blurred, half-baked action stunts looked visually impressive, but only if you wanted an award for artistic impression. As a dramatic background or underlying plot strengthener, they were absolutely useless. One was left with the impression that teh entire budget was for special effects and the script was an afterthought. If Craig brought some humanity into the Bond character with Casino Royale then he has unfortunately ended up in Quantum of Solace with a vengeful, generally indestructable, human with no Bond left in him. I think he should be given another chance but I think the producers, writers and directors should probably follow in the footsteps of Mr Greene and let somebody who knows what they're doing take over behind the cameras and production.
Okay, when everyone raved about how brilliant "Casino Royale" was and how the franchise was re-invigorated, and Daniel Craig was the Bond who was truest to Ian Fleming 's creation, I didn't agree, but I didn't say anything. But now, after seeing QOS, I've got to say it - it's all wrong. Bond was cruel, but he had charm. He often grinned, cracked jokes, enjoyed fine wine, flirted with women. He wasn't a bundle of misery, drenched in grief. Daniel Craig (everyone says) is a fine actor, but he's so damn serious. The franchise needs to lighten up or else it will go under.
I have been lucky enough to have seen every Bond film as it has premiered (so you can tell I'm middle-aged!). I was preared to be horribly disappointed but salute the franchise for boldness. I found the film so compelling, in its acting, cinematography, editing and imagery (loved the black and white motif) that I nearly stood and applauded at the end. And I'm a traditionalist at heart! The huge blus eyeball and Tosca soundtrack were perfect and perhaps an homage to the man crawling out of the window in Marilyn Monroe's face in From Russia With Love. The more obvious link was to Goldfinger, where Shirley Eaton is found covered in gold paint - here Fields is covered in oil. Daniel Craig is growing into the part and Judi Dench superb. I, for one, hope Barbara Broccoli has the courage of her convictions.
Not only the worst Bond film, but possibly the worst film I've seen. Several people walked out, and I was tempted to follow suit, only I kept on thinking that it would improve (it didn't). Since when has James Bond been a cold-eyed thug? No quips, no smile, no warmth, no dialogue. And don't start me on the editing! Enough is enough. This is just a licence to mint money.
Disappointing. No gadgets or Bondness. Too much killing. Weak storyline.Seemed as if they were trying to appeal to different type of audience but most people went because they enjoy the Bond formula - this wan't Bond. I hope the person who says they will get it right and Bond will return is right.
I have grown up with the Bond films but this was the worst I have seen.No story,too much action and killing. Could have been added on to the end of Casino Royale.
Bridge to the next Bond film...plot is developing into the next Bond films where Quantum is the new SPECTRE. At least three new villains are ready for future films. Quantum of Solace will be watched again and again before future movies for background. His vengeance for the killing of Vesper marginalizes the Bond girls in this one to understandable (yet disappointing) effect. Bond fans will like it but those who did not see Casino Royale must see it first. Movie will not stand on its own. Craig looks like Steve McQueen playing a Jason Bourne-Bond. Judi Dench is superb.