Quantum of Solace

Film, Action and adventure
3 out of 5 stars
4 out of 5 stars
(182user reviews)
Revenge is a dish best served cold. Which, along with mean and lean, is how Daniel Craig plays 007 in Marc Forster’s slightly disappointing, furiously-paced, hi-tech, slash-and-burn sequel to the more leisurely, luxurious first ‘reboot’, ‘Casino Royale’.

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 details

Release date:
Friday October 31 2008
0 mins

Cast and crew

Marc Forster
Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Daniel Craig
Mathieu Amalric
Judi Dench
Gemma Arterton
Jeffrey Wright
Jesper Christensen
Giancarlo Giannini

Average User Rating

3.5 / 5

Rating Breakdown

  • 5 star:90
  • 4 star:12
  • 3 star:20
  • 2 star:19
  • 1 star:41
1 person listening

This has now become one of the classic bond films. Daniel Craig is a great lead, even if a little bit too beefy some times. The script is predictable but that's not what you watch bond for I guess.... The action is always top notch and I am a big fan of the car chase scenes. Yet another feather in the cap of the bond series!


i like supercol. and the rest as he said are a waste of time and supercilious snobs with pseudo linguistic stash

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.

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

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!

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 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.

While I sometimes lean towards sentimentality, I think it's a shame that some don't appreciate this film because it's doesn't closely resemble previous Bond films. I bet that if the movie featured some generic action hero instead of Bond, most that panned this movie would have a different opinion. I have seen too many movies that showcase gadgets; it's refreshing that the technology featured here was understated and flowed with the storyline. I don't think the movie is perfect and definitely not better than Casino Royale but it was a good change of pace.

i have never seen so many gorgeous people and locations in an intelligent script which is a novelty for a bond movie

Brilliant film. Follows up Casino Royale very well by not dilly-dallying on what the previous film already set up. This is definitely a grown-up man's Bourne, with a lot more depth and layers than most audiences are perhaps used to the shallow-fied Bond franchise. It's an art movie masquerading as an action flick, and Craig's take on Bond seems to have flummoxed even the seasoned critics. A shame, really: he beats Connery's smug, fake "look at me, I am a suave secret agent" hands down.

Very exiting and stylishly shot, the story was complex but this made it more intresting. The films action is the main focus and ,whilst some may see this as pointless violence, others will understand it as a description of Bond's feelings in the film, he is more intrested in revenge than the thoughts of others and their well being.

Absolutely bloody brilliant. Breathtaking from start to finish. I loved the nods to Bond films past, while at the same time taking the franchise to a whole new stage. I didn't miss Q, I didn't miss the (frankly stupid) gadgets, I just sat enthralled as Bond was updated into a proper 21st Century thriller. And the scene where he leaves the opera, choreographed to the music of Tosca, was a complete tour de force.

Fantastic all of it, only comment I would of liked a short Casino sequence and the opening song/tune was hopeless, could you remember it I could`nt

it rocks and it is the best movie of the tear -the comments below are just trying to mislead people as it has smashed 16 million in a weekend -jealousy burns you buddy-everyone go watch it -best action ever -seen 3 times already -and a detailed intelligent script too like godfather 2 of the great trilogy

box office in blighty BUSTED by danny boy -all QOS haters BURN after reading this -this movie is not for petit bourgeois but for those born with style and intellect -danny boy rulez

We were nearly put off by bad reviews but so pleased we went. Similar to Casino Royale (not quite as good) but we and our 16 year old son really enjoyed it. Plenty of action, scenery etc.

QOS is a Bond film with action and without the corny remarks, a complex vendetta without revenge, and thriller without stupid gadgets. For those seeking traditional Bond prepare to see something quite different, for those wanting to see a fast moving action packed thriller with Bond as the main character prepare to be both visually and mentally stimulated. Here begins a new era!

danniel rocks -we love QOS -LOVELY LA TOSCA -JUDI DENCH is a real dame with danny boy and both are in top form -damn good thriller taKing the piss out of CIA

One of the best Bond films ever! The scene at the opera is masterful. 10 out of 110

Everyones shocked because the film wasn't like the others. In this film bond is on the run from his own people and didn't have access to gadgets. There were no one-liners because he was still deeply upset about the women he loved who died for him. The emotions were spot on by Daniel in this film, cold, dark, lonely and taking his anger out on others. Action was really intense and focused on all the details. It was much more realistic than other bond films. Daniel is the most believable bond due to his physical appearance and ferociousness. He looks like an athlete who could really do damage, unlike other bonds. Truth be told, I can imagine people saying things like "It wasn't a bond film" but I really thought it was clever and enjoyed it. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD

I’ve seen the QS twice now. I take on board all the comments about the action shots being too close and M turning up everywhere is a little unbelievable. That’s the problem. This film is trying hard to be an all action thriller and yet make Bond a truly realistic character. Recent Bonds with all the gadgets and jokes are just totally fairyland and we all know deep down its all nonsense and so enjoyed them for what they were and therefore expected the cheap laughs. But in CR they introduced us to a different Bond, a cold killer, a more realistic Spy and Man. This is taken further in QS and we now start to believe this is real life. We like this damaged Bond and feel slightly cheated that we do not get chance to see into his character in close action fight scenes and start complaining because some things, such as M turning up everywhere, are not realistic. Since when has Bond film’s been realistic? I think the clearly damaged gritty Killer bond is great and in the next film they should go further and let us into his character. In QS they didn’t quite get the balance right. However if you can remember the plot from CR you should be able to follow QS at least after two viewings. And what’s wrong with that? I like having to revisit films to understand them completely and pick up on things I didn’t quite get first time round. If I had not enjoyed it, I wouldn’t care. QUESTION Last scene Bond says to M, “ you were right in what you said about Vesper� He walks off and drops the chain in the snow. What had M said that was correct??

Excellent film, welll acted, plenty of action. As good as Casino Royale.

this is the best thriller of the year so far and the year is over -almost -which makes it the best bet yet

You guys expect too much from a film. It is a film. A bond film. How can you say the action was badly filmed or too quick...slow motion action then????? Why comparing it with Casino Royale? I saw QOS and completely understood the plot and the story....People like to compare...but no no...that is stupid. Do you compare your car with your previous car? Do you compare a pizza with fish and chips...come on dont compare 2 films...or two stories, it is uncompatible...like comparing a PC with a Mac.....it is 2 different products. You like or dislike....but pls STOP saying it was a poor film...cos it is not....it is just that your taste isnt for that film...thats all...dont expect too much.

Whoever claims the film is rubbish, unBond, or 'the worst film' they have ever seen, are stupid, old fashioned and are not ready to move on. I went into the cinema wanting Drama and action, and that is what i got. QOS may not live up to its very high (infact stupidly high) expectations after Casino Royale, but it is certainly a very good film, and is one of the two best bond films i have ever seen. What Casino Royale did was, bring Bond into the 21st century, and QOS carries this on. Bond is nolonger the flirty, sex-addict he once was; he is now a brutal assassin, out for revenge, and (as Bond kindly points out in the film) "has no friends". The film does have a story, its just not easy to follow, mainly because of the amazing action scenes (which happen to be way better than Bourne). The film is the first Bond film to carry on the story from the last film, which makes it seem like it didnt have a story. But it did, and it was mainly about Bond trying to find out whether Vesper truly loved him, and he does so at the end of the film. Whoever says this film is not worth the money, they need to get out more and take a look at the real world. It's dark, dramatic and dangerous; just like QOS, which brings Bond to the real world of humiliation and defeat. Critics who say the film is a disapointment to the Bond franchise, are probably still dreaming of being a secret agent, beating the villain who plans on taking over the world in his secret volcano, and in the end, get the girl. Take a look at the real world, Bond is not invincible anymore, he can be hurt, emotionally and physically.

Saw it. LOVED IT. Action action action. So many people are comparing it with the previous ones! Why? It is a film with a NEW Bond. It is about a Special Agent/Spy called Bond. And so, what is the problem if no Q, no gagdets? I dont want to have a deja vu Bond. If that was the case people wouldnt be too happy saying it is JUST a Bond film. It is more than a Bond Film. It is an action film. Go to see and if you dont like it well...it is not for you. It is a bit like tasting a dish which has been recommended and it is not what you expected either in the good or bad way. Be surprised.

Watched it last night and thoroughly enjoyed it-if you read some of the other comments it would put you off-glad I didn't!

craig is an inconsolable bond enraged with vengeance and this is a real solace of a thriller ,consistent and coherent with stupendous action in air land and water,it is darker than dark knight and forster makes nolan look like an action amateur . the movie brings bond to a political maturity it lacked before ,i loved the references to the chinese american dirty games and the plight of the globe with the oil struggle involving the british role. the corruption is so well etched and beaureaucrats shown as cold and callous as snakes ,bond gets to where he has never been before -totally chilling in a harrowing world gone haywire -more dramatic and intelligent than both casino royale and dark knight -as good as the last bourne -will require more than one viewing to appreciate both the intricate conspiracies and the best action i have ever seen -mark forster really makes his mark on the great genre -the exotic but tough locations are superb and the la tosca opera beautifully played in a great piece with great drama -but as they say -la tosca in not for everyone -neither are intelligent efficient purposeful and implicating thrillers

Its 4.50 in the morning and I'm still trying to nod off to sleep after an interesting night out at the local cinema. You see I went to see the 11pm showing of QOS at my local AMC on its opening night. It was a fantastic atmosphere with groups of lads dressed in pristine tuxedo's who were (like me) itching to see this film. Ok lets break it down. This is not a Bond film as we know it. It is however a Bond film for our times, as were all the others that have proceeded it. Sure enough its not as good a film as Casino Royale, But then again, Dr No is not as good as Goldfinger and The Man with the Golden Gun is not as good as The Spy Who Loved Me and Die Another Day is not as good as Goldeneye. However, all the films named in the previous sentence were all great nights out at the cinema which ever way you look at it. This is a rip roaring rampage of revenge with more humour than Casino Royale and some really touching scenes. My favourite being when Bond travels by plane with Rene Mathis to South America. Bond is drowning his sorrows (while he can between breath taking action scenes) with 4 or 5 Vesper martinis. Daniel Craig plays a restrained slightly squiffy scene that is so touching and shows us that despite his protestations Vesper really got to him in Casino Royale and that the pain of her betrayal and loss is still there beneath the surface whether he likes it or not. Mathieu Almeric is quite sublime as the Bond nemesis in the narrative and his portrayal is restrained and loathsome at the same time. Its nice to see him flex his muscles after his super performance in Speilbergs "MUNICH" and quite simply he plays a completely believable tyrant despite the lack of some kind of satellite based terror weapon. Dominic Greene is an utterly up to date Bond villain with motives and moves that make sense in our day and age. What are those motives? Greed, greed and more greed . . . pure and simple. I absolutely loved QOS, despite the fact that the characters of Rene Mathis and Felix Leiter are woefully under used. Judi Dench as "M" gets more to do in this installment of the Bond series and her performance is a complete tour de force from beginning to end. Anyhow, writing this report has eased me towards sleep and believe me I shall sleep easy in the happy knowledge that James Bond moves ahead with our times with Daniel Craig seriously challenging Sean Connery for the "WHO"S THE BEST BOND" title.

'Quantum' starts literally a couple of hours after the end of Casino Royale, so it would be worth watching the DVD just to refresh your memory before seeing the next instalment of the revitalised franchise. Daniel Craig is great as Bond, but unlike in most Bond films, he's pretty much on his own this time - he doesn't have any MI6 gadgets to play with on the way (because he's gone 'renegade' and so MI6 wouldn't be sending him any...). The action sequences are superb and the locations are exceptional. All in all a great film, but its a shame the bad guy just doesn't come across as "Bond Villain" enough.

Brilliant- great locations- great use of locals in South America. However, just too far fetched with the pyrotechnics- who could live through it....

I think this film is superb. The action was fantastic and Daniel Craig is the best bond. A must see film for the family and you will enjoy it.

What an awful review. It's as if the person who wrote it was stuck in the 1970's Bond films with Roger Moore's raised eyebrows and cheesy one liners being this person's favourite bits! Thankfully most people who love Bond films will see this film for what it is... Brilliant! Ignore the critic, they don't have a clue!

u r all talking poo poo, fantastic film great action scenes cant go wron, i recommend anyone to go n see this film

time out, please please please, STOP being the ANNOYING Emo Esq, hair to the side, spotty faced graduate Museo you are that we all hate!!! don't you know ;0)

Roxy and Rothery...have you actually seen the movie? If not then how can you rate it out of five? I was fortunate enough to go to a cast and crew screening so I feel qualified to comment. I love Bond and I love the new Bond era but believe me this isn't a good movie and it isn't a patch on casino Royale

That was a bad review, actually probably one of the worst I've ever read. Not even worthy of the title "Movie review"

That was a bad review, actually probably one of the worst I've ever read. Not even worthy of the title "Movie review"

I very much agree with this reveiw having seen the movie today at a C & Crew screening. It lacks depth and is a real disappointment after Casino which I loved. There is too much aaction and no depth or intrigue.

How could you give it this kind of review? Your job as a critic is to review things fairly, to rate things down on the premise of it's action is a farce to the community you claim to enlighten. The new format of James Bond - which I consider the Daniel Craig era - is set upon a storyline; they make it action, because it needs it. It's showing the human, almost animal, side to Bond that longs to get revenge. It's a story. If you're going to review a film, do so with your brain switched on.

How could you give it this kind of review? Your job as a critic is to review things fairly, to rate things down on the premise of it's action is a farce to the community you claim to enlighten. The new format of James Bond - which I consider the Daniel Craig era - is set upon a storyline; they make it action, because it needs it. It's showing the human, almost animal, side to Bond that longs to get revenge. It's a story. If you're going to review a film, do so with your brain switched on.

Show More