Quantum of Solace (2 Viewers)

[Wraith]

Caught it last night guys. It certainly doesn't live up to it's predecessor even though it's a direct sequel the main fault being the story, it just doesn't evolve like CR.

The usual exciting Bond intro is absolutely dreadful with a cameraman suffering from the worst case of St Vitus Dance on film I have ever seen-a "thrilling Bourne type car-chase" that wobbles (definitely doesn't focus) on either Craig's earlobe or his right foot on the accelerator. I challenge anyone to comprehend what was happening and the film continues in a blur of just 105 minutes which has to be the shortest Bond film on record surely, well it felt like it with everything happening at super-sonic speed.
We are back with world domination again-water resources this time and the actor who plays the Bond villain fails spectacularly, he is such a non-descript I could have sorted him out myself after a couple of beers let alone a double O killer having to.

The film is not all bad and the strongest character is Dench's M- she is very good in this because the script allows her to be delivering killer lines with a relish. But the excellent actor who played the very cool character Felix Leiter in CR is unfortunately reduced to a virtual cameo role a complete waste of a fine actor who has nothing to do.
A good knowledge of CR is an absolute pre-requisite to make any sense of the story what little there is so I would recommend watching the prequel again before catching this. After the absurdity that the Bond films became with "The World is not Enough" and "Die Another Day" I too had high hopes for the re-incarnated JB and Casino Royale lived up to my expectations but they need another rethink after this one.

Oh Yeah! and an absolute must is never to let director Marc Forster anywhere near Bond and his world again he needs relegating back to his TV adverts from whence he came.

Reb

Perfectly summed up Reb, far more accurately than I could have.
Forgot to mention the Bond girls, who are, as usual, lush.

Simon

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

I liked it, but i must say it had a terrible opening theme song, though i like the graphics. It was good it wsnt as good as Casino Royale but it was far amazing fight scenes, not as good as a plot but it had a lot of fire shooting and explosians and that is what i was looking for.

Vick

 

[Col. Hesler]

I wasn't able to see it due to strep throat .

 

[The Military Workshop]

I saw it with my 15 year old son last night.
Totally agree with Reb's summary.
The opening scene and most fight/action scenes annoyed me. Opening music terrible.
I have a big complaint about the No 1 villain and that is that his right hand man was a pathetic No 2. At least he could have had a serious bodyguard / killer type who the audience looks forward to dying in a fight with Bond.
Loved Casino Royale and new Bond (Craig) but not too impressed with the director on this one.
My son was less impressed than I was.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Quantity of Suffering might have been a better title for this film since that is what it causes any who watch this disappointing train wreck. It might also be labeled Shaken but not Stirring. I had the sad misfortune of being tortured by this film this weekend and I must agree with Bob’s observations for the most part. If anything, I think he was much too kind. While some may differ that this was the worst Bond film to date, for me it secured that spot quite handily.

I really wanted to like this movie, really I did. I have been a fan of Bond since before the first film translation and Connery certainly did not disappoint. Not ever Bond film since then has been worthy but they all did at least entertain in some fashion. Of course they all had something this one clearly does not, action scenes you could actually watch. As the Boston Globe reviewer aptly noted, …The camera swoops and jerks like a rubber bat on a string, and all the shots look as if they've been thrown into an industrial-strength blender. Some people will see all this and think, "Wow." But no 007 experience should come so close to being a slushie…. I think he was also too kind since it made me think of a much more crude “S” word.

What a lamentable fall from the promise and thrill of Casino Royale. This outing is literally bludgeoned into an unwatchable mush of a very promising but impossible to decipher string of stunts. This is the product of that so-called style of film making that substitutes blur for stunning. In an apparent effort to give the action more intensity, it is pitifully stripped of any impact and rendered tedious. After all, what does it matter how good the stunt is if you can’t see it? Sadly, the few glimpses suggest some of these stunts would have been a treat to see. As it is, they could have saved much of the budget and substituted some video game replays; at least they might have been in focus. Suffice it to say that by a very early point in the film I found myself conjuring up some really painful torture for which ever of the producers or director was responsible for this approach. Perhaps they should be made to spend several days wearing visors that forced them to see their surroundings as blurry extreme close-ups.

Of course the hopelessly botched action filming is not the only problem. What has always made Bond great is Bond and the beautiful and fascinating world he travels in. This version gives Daniel Craig little rein to recapture the rough but stylish sophistication of his early outing. We are left with a boorish wind-up action hero that has little time for the traditional Bond humor and joie de la vie. Craig can do much better and Bond deserves much more. As Bob notes, this movie even messes up the traditional Bond frills; the title sequence is painfully grating and dull and the beautiful locations are hardly shown. Why not film it all at Wal-Mart?

And then there is the lack of any attempt at linking the action with a story line that allows for some mystery or display of actual intelligence agent expertise. It is all brutality and no subtlety; thinking, we don’t need no stinking thinking.

As Bob notes, the villain is scarcely up to the task and comes off more pathetic than threatening. Jeffrey Wright, as Felix, is hardly given any decent lines or screen time with any meaning. The Bond girls are beautiful as usual but oddly devoid of any real interplay with James; has he lost his touch?

Judi Dench gives the movie its best parts and at times even threatens to add meaning to some scenes but the film gives her scant opportunity to finish more than a sentence or two for the most part.

It seems this appalling mess is doing well at the box office. That simply makes me weep for the future. I guess I will have to settle for watching the previous films for my necessary Bond fix; I sure won’t get it from this one. D**n you Director Marc Forster and everyone else at the studeo that hatched this turkey, as well as every moron reviewer that found appeal in this trash. I'm with Roger Ebert who appropriately said Never again. Don't ever let this happen again to James Bond

 

[Mister Dave]

You've all made it even that much easier for me not to see this one, which.....I'd already decided not to see any way.

What I am really surprised by reading through this thread are all the favorable references to the Casino Royale remake. I hated almost every minute of that one. I figured I was expecting too much as certainly to re-hash a great Bond film with updated and relevant technology and issues one would expect something absolutely stunning. I was too distracted with the sappy love interest bits and the dumbest villains ever to get in 007's way to enjoy a bit of it.

MD

 

[The Military Workshop]

Hard to figure but apparently this one is doing better at the Oz Box Office than Casino Royale did !!!
Des not make sense. Although not much competition during it's first week so that could explain it.

 

[UKReb]

Bill

Your synopsis I must agree is painfully accurate, when I posted my critique of the movie on here it didn't garner many comments (stand fast Simon) and I thought that I had committed the mortal sin of decrying everyone's favorite spy. But since then I have had time to reflect some more on what I would now list as my most cinematic disappointment of 2008 especially after the excellence of it's prequel. You are correct I was too kind to the film but I did not want to spoil the plot (I know one didn't exist) to the guys on here who had not yet managed to see it but a couple of additions I'll now make is:

How did Mr White manage to escape?
How did Mathis become Bond's best trusted friend again after Bond had him tortured/interrogated in CR? I say best friend but he did tip his dead body in a rubbish tip-saying "He wouldn't mind"
The joke line when Bond meets Miss Fields would be entirely lost on an audience unless you read the credits to see that her first name is "Strawberry" (Beatles track)
The Musak of Alicia Keyes wailings was obviously forced onto the production team by some tackless Sony wunderkid looking for a hit record which has failed miserably. They might sack the blunderkid and bring back John Barry.
And where did the $250 million budget go?
Enough already! but I did enjoy the trailers pity the film didn't live up to them.

I amused myself in re-creating the script meeting at Eon Productions following Brosnan's last outing in his invisible BMW tackling the Chinese villian who had miraculously metamorphised into that most English of actors Toby Stephens.(Give me a break)

Production Manager: "Guys "Die Another Day" has made shed-loads of money but the critics are panning us, just listen to this from the Guardian "Bond has become a gadget laden sexist dinosaur-a cold war relic-with the plots becoming more ridiculous with every new release" and worse they keep comparing us to the "gritty realism" of the Bourne movies. I think we need to get back to basics"

The ten scriptwriters all talking at once:- "I gotta idea; We need a new Bond a kinda of souless killer without a real identity who maybe fights with rolled up magazines and kills people with just a Biro pen. We need to open it with a brutal fist fight maybe in a toilet, jerky camerawork will be a must with real-life car-chases. And we gotta make him depressed so let's kill his girl-friend that puts him on a revenge trail-Hey better still let's serialise at least the next three movies. Maybe we could shoot him a couple of times and he either saves himself by going into a chemist to get all the ingredients or better still somebody poisons him and he has to inject himself to live-No No the girl saves him before we kill her off. Sounds great guys vamanos!"

OK a poor stab at mocking the afflicted but by plagiarising the Bourne movies they got it spot on for Casino Royal. Daniel Craig (by the way it's pronounced CRAGE not CREG which I keep hearing in every USTV review) was a good choice as the reborn Jason Bourne sorry sorry James Bond-same initials always confuses me. Good plot, good characters and another perfect choice- using Flemings first book Casino Royale. The only criticism I could make on this movie is would a bunch of professional cosmopolitan poker players playing in Montenegro really play Texas-Hold-em?

In conclusion we must assume that in the next Bond movie we all find out who and what the evil cartel Quantum is all about but after this latest episode which has seriously lost the plot-will anybody care?

Reb

 

[Capitolron]

I saw it - last week - one word ... YAWN.

 

[lancer]

Saw this at long last and I must say it was not the best Bond film I saw. Depended way to much on chase scenes (no less than 6 drawn out chases; car, foot, boat, foot, airplane, and foot, again). Had a bit of trouble following the plot. Glad I didn't spend theatre money to see it but found it entertaining enough for TV. -- lancer

 

[Ragnar]

I also only just watched it.....were are all the Gadgets
Forget Bond... Liam Neeson in Taken would eat Bond for lunch and ask for seconds

 

[Spitfrnd]

I also only just watched it.....were are all the Gadgets
Forget Bond... Liam Neeson in Taken would eat Bond for lunch and ask for seconds

Now that sounds interesting, I am waiting for Taken in my Netflix cue. Now could we have a moratorium on mentioning QoS; I am having my breakfast.

 

[Ragnar]

Now that sounds interesting, I am waiting for Taken in my Netflix cue. Now could we have a moratorium on mentioning QoS; I am having my breakfast.

Haha but realy you should like it........infact i realy need to go buy it

 

[mikemiller1955]

Well, after reading every post on here, I don't think I'll go to the theater to pay for this one.

I don't think I'll rent it from my local video store.

I'm pretty sure I won't even pay for it on Direct TV rentals either.

This one just might be a "saver", for a year from now when it finally appears on HBO for free.

Thanks for the reviews.

Also...............don't get mad at me, it's just my opinion, but Sean Connery is the best Bond to me. I'm 54 years old and I have seen them all.

 

[lancer]

Well, after reading every post on here, I don't think I'll go to the theater to pay for this one.

I don't think I'll rent it from my local video store.

I'm pretty sure I won't even pay for it on Direct TV rentals either.

This one just might be a "saver", for a year from now when it finally appears on HBO for free.

Thanks for the reviews.

Also...............don't get mad at me, it's just my opinion, but Sean Connery is the best Bond to me. I'm 54 years old and I have seen them all.

Sean IS Bond. Got two years on you Mike and our 1950's upbringing is showing. -- Al

 

[Spitfrnd]

...Also...............don't get mad at me, it's just my opinion, but Sean Connery is the best Bond to me. I'm 54 years old and I have seen them all.

Not to worry mate, if you read back on some of the many Bond comments you will find much company for that opinion; mine included. I've seen them all to. To me, Craig was second in CR and was never given a chance in this thing.

 

[mikemiller1955]

I watched it last night, it wasn't that bad.

In fact, I kind of liked it,

but the older ones are still my favorites.

The "older guys",
like me,
remember a James Bond,
when he had a wrist watch that had a laser beam in it.

I mean, 40 years ago, THAT WAS COOL!

Your memory plays tricks on you though.

My father passed away a couple of years ago.

I was lucky, he was always my hero, but as I got older, he became my best friend.

When I was 10 ish in age,
every night around 6 PM,
he would sit on the couch with me and we would watch the Wild Wild West.

Back then, at that age, it was the greatest show in the world.

Robert Conrad and Ross Martin.

Dun dah dun dun, dah, dun dun.

We loved that show, James West, Dr. Loveless, what a show.

A few years before his death, I was flipping channels and saw a rerun of it on the tv.

I called my Dad and said,

"Quick, turn to channel 75."

I watched about 5 minutes of it and realized it was terrible.

I changed the channel.

He called me back about 10 minutes later and said,

"How did we ever watch that garbage".

Man, let me tell you,

it's going to hard to convince an "old guy",

that the new James Bonds,

are as good as the ones we grew up with.

I mean we had Oddjob, Goldfinger, Dr. No, May Day, Largo.

These were some evil guys.

One constant that never changes, THE BOND GIRLS!

and PS...the girl in oil on the bed,

done before,

Goldfinger.

OLD GUYS RULE!!!

 

[1879fanatic]

I watched it last night, it wasn't that bad.

In fact, I kind of liked it,

but the older ones are still my favorites.

The "older guys",
like me,
remember a James Bond,
when he had a wrist watch that had a laser beam in it.

I mean, 40 years ago, THAT WAS COOL!

Your memory plays tricks on you though.

My father passed away a couple of years ago.

I was lucky, he was always my hero, but as I got older, he became my best friend.

When I was 10 ish in age,
every night around 6 PM,
he would sit on the couch with me and we would watch the Wild Wild West.

Back then, at that age, it was the greatest show in the world.

Robert Conrad and Ross Martin.

Dun dah dun dun, dah, dun dun.

We loved that show, James West, Dr. Loveless, what a show.

A few years before his death, I was flipping channels and saw a rerun of it on the tv.

I called my Dad and said,

"Quick, turn to channel 75."

I watched about 5 minutes of it and realized it was terrible.

I changed the channel.

He called me back about 10 minutes later and said,

"How did we ever watch that garbage".

Man, let me tell you,

it's going to hard to convince an "old guy",

that the new James Bonds,

are as good as the ones we grew up with.

I mean we had Oddjob, Goldfinger, Dr. No, May Day, Largo.

These were some evil guys.

One constant that never changes, THE BOND GIRLS!

and PS...the girl in oil on the bed,

done before,

Goldfinger.

OLD GUYS RULE!!!

I got the DVD for free from ordering lots of office supplies for the gals at work...Have to see it when I have time.
I remember watching "The Andy Williams Show" with my Dad. That dancing bear still prevents me from having a better relationship with Dad All I have for my kids to remember me by are "Goosebumps" and "Teletubbies"
NOT SO OLD GUYS RULE!!!
Mike

 

[Spitfrnd]

I watched it last night, it wasn't that bad.

In fact, I kind of liked it,

but the older ones are still my favorites.

The "older guys",
like me,
remember a James Bond,
when he had a wrist watch that had a laser beam in it.
I mean, 40 years ago, THAT WAS COOL!

...

Yes we do remember those. Tell me though Mike how did you tolerate the jittery and excessively edited and close framed mess they made of the action scenes. Now in all the previous Bond movies, the action scenes were all easy to watch and generally well done. I got the vague impression that these were as well but with that combination of camera work and editing, I seriously could not tell. I was not kidding when I titled my review shaken and not stirring. Also, this version made Bond just so grim and relentless, not one bit of fun and frivolity in the whole mess; is that Bond? Of course there are all the huge plot holes but for Bond, that can be overlooked if they get the rest right.

 

[mikemiller1955]

Yes we do remember those. Tell me though Mike how did you tolerate the jittery and excessively edited and close framed mess they made of the action scenes. Now in all the previous Bond movies, the action scenes were all easy to watch and generally well done. I got the vague impression that these were as well but with that combination of camera work and editing, I seriously could not tell. I was not kidding when I titled my review shaken and not stirring. Also, this version made Bond just so grim and relentless, not one bit of fun and frivolity in the whole mess; is that Bond? Of course there are all the huge plot holes but for Bond, that can be overlooked if they get the rest right.

I think both you and Bob (UKREB) had mentioned the close ups on chase scenes and fights being out of focus, so it was the first thing I looked for when I viewed the movie.

I FOUND IT QUICKLY!

I think they could have done a better job.

I'm lucky, I have a 63" Samsung, high definition, Direct TV satellite set up.

It was a little shaky, it was a little blurry, but because I hear so badly, lol, I'm usually reading the closed caption and glancing at the screen.

The movie was okay, the plot was good, the photography could have been better.

My biggest complaint with the new James Bond movies,

and this began with Daniel Craig,

is that they have changed his image,

from a cavalier womanizer,

which I liked,

to a love struck puppy,

well maybe not a puppy,

but come on man, that's not the James Bond I knew.

I mean the plot of the movie was almost his revenge for Vespar.

That's a new image of Bond for me.

Also, in the past, Bond got in some tight spots, but,

the scene in Casino Royale where,

Le Chiffre strips Bond naked,

ties his hands and feet to a chair,

and tortures him for the access code to the game's winnings by whacking at his testicles with a knotted rope.

Jesus Christ man,

NOT MY JAMES BOND!!

I'm sorry to say it, but they are just not the same for me.

I will admit, I did like that roof top foot chase.

I'll continue to watch them, cause I'll watch anything, but I don't like the direction they are going.