Quantum of Solace Reviews

Page 1 of 1752
Super Reviewer
½ May 19, 2009
I may be one of the few but i like Daniel Craig as Bond. I think they have done a good job so far keeping the throttle all the way on high and keep the explosions coming. Its a standard Bond fare which has to be taken in a very much reboot fashion over just continuing the 007 movies from before.
Super Reviewer
½ May 30, 2008
After Casino Royale reset the franchise and breathed fresh life into the character of Bond, Quantum immediately follows it up with a well staged but overly familiar bullet-riddled car chase. Bond is then chased by men with foreign accents atop motorcycles/speedboats/jet fighters and jumps out of a plane without a parachute. Again. Female agents are once more demoted to dolly birds who hurtle into Bond's bed with such ferocious speed they threaten to break the sound barrier, only to instantaneously wind up in a body bag (as usual) and he battles a shadowy multinational organization with a hidden agenda but with a rather dreary nerd in command instead of a cat stroking cartoon character. The problem with Quantum Of Solace is it makes the mistake of making Bond go rogue; this always sounds good, but it never works. When he goes off on one, he just turns into a one dimensional killing machine and it removes all the moral ambiguity and grey areas that make 007 interesting. The plot is little more than chase-fight-chase-fight-chase-fight, all of the supporting characters are dispensable and irrelevant and the editing is migraine inducing; I doubt that there's a shot that lasts more than three seconds for the entire duration of the film! Instead of continuing with the new direction introduced in the previous film, QOS is very much business as usual and although it does have enough action to make it feel like a treat on a superficial level, it's pretty much all empty calories.
Super Reviewer
October 8, 2009
A lot of what I have to say about this movie has already been said plenty, but what can you do? Marc Forster's resume proves he's a decent director, but not for something like this, especially since he's a non-action director who, with this movie made a film where action sequences fill up an overwhelming amount of the running time. While there's nothing inherently wrong with having lots of action, it didn't work here for several reasons: Bond films aren't supposed to be balls-out action movies, Bond is not an action hero, and, even though the Bourne-films do it a lot, the quick-edits and shaky camera add (I suppose) a degree of realism to the action, but more often than not, that style of editing hinders more than it helps, making it damn hard to figure out what the hell is going on half the time. Since Forster is not used to doing action scenes, perhaps he should be given a break, and I can see why he would use an established style as a template to work off of, but I think it would have been cool had he been more gutsy and tried his own thing instead of emulation. What non-action scenes are present were pretty good though, and so was the homage to Goldfinger. The plot was not bad. I liked the fact that the movie was a direct sequel, but at a run time of 106 minutes, things felt very rushed and confused. A longer run time and a little less action would have been excellent. I realize that the intention may have been to leave some stuff unanswered for the sequel, which is ok (every now and then), but I don't want it to become an ongoing trend. Ending things more concretely is not a crime. I could go on giviving out more nitpicks, but it's not necessary. Yeah, this is a weak film in general, but especially since it's a follow up to a film that was so strong, but there are far worse films out there. The action was good, but a little much and lacking in clarity, and the overall look of the film was great, but the muddled plot/shoddy script make it hard to get in to. Because I liked the performances, and because I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt, I'll go easy on this film. If the mistakes here aren't rectified the next time around, I may not be so nice.
Super Reviewer
½ December 7, 2012
The 22nd James Bond flick is visually brilliant. The action sequences combined with the flair of Daniel Craig develops the same great 007 spark. But the film does falter in not being as explosive, captivating and just plain better than the remake. It's still a good chapter, nonetheless. 3.5/5
Super Reviewer
½ November 10, 2012
"Quantum of Solace" is one of the rare Bond movies that is a direct sequel. Usually each movie is a standalone, but here this picks up right after "Casino Royale". From the beginning of the movie in the car chase to the very end, this is a very solid outing. Daniel Craig reprises the role of Bond, and shows new dimensions to the character that some of the other actors never did. This movie is pretty much a revenge movie as Bond is out to find answers for the betrayal and death of the woman he fell in love with, Vesper. It's weird to see Bond so frazzled, rugged, and not as suave as previous versions, but it works amazingly well. I think the biggest problem with this movie is it followed "Casino Royale". That movie was so good, that nearly any followup would be a letdown. But, it's still a very good Bond movie, that ranks a lot higher after a new viewing. The action in this movie is insane, and I really dig the way the movie ends. Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond, and this movie does a great job of building on his portrayal and overall legacy as Bond, James Bond.
Super Reviewer
½ January 14, 2010
This film tries way too hard to get up to the standards that "Casino Royale" met, but sadly, it is just a bunch of jumbled action, jumbled dialogue scenes, and a plot that becomes really sloppy. This has the Bond character, a bond villain, the bond girls, but is it a bond film? Absolutely not! It takes off from where the previous film left off, trying to do everything it can to be a mile-a-minute action film, which is not at all what Bond films are meant to be like. This is a huge let-down for the franchise, especially being the conclusion to a story that was amazing. "Quantum of Solace" has annoyingly fast editing, a poor script, and very CG heavy action sequences, making up a description of a bad movie, which it is not. It is not a bad film, but it may be by the Bond standard. My Word: "Meh!"
Super Reviewer
March 30, 2011
Daniel Craig's second Bond outing sees that all the fun from Casino Royale is replaced with convolution, both in the story and the action sequences.
Super Reviewer
½ December 21, 2007
It's even better than Casino Royale and even has a groove just like the old-school Bond films. A smart, stylish, intense and hard-boiled action-thriller. Jammed with even more heart-pounding action sequences, incredible stunts, great special effects and nail-biting suspense. An awesome and wickedly cool adventure filled with non-stop thrills and exhilarating excitement that's filled with great fight sequences, chases and gun battles. Director, Marc Foster crafts a superb continuation to the Bond series, he probably crafts one of it's best installments yet. A very fine filmmaker taking on the action genre for the first time and executes it very well. A terrific entertainment ride. It's crisp, clever, riveting and adrenaline-pumping. Daniel Craig is excellent, he proves once again that he is the best and toughest Bond to hit the screen. Craig adds more depth and development to this compelling character. It's pulse-pounding and spectacular action movie fun from start to finish. It's not just about the action but mostly about the story and characters. The best Bond in the perfect action film.
Super Reviewer
October 26, 2012
25/10/2012 (DVD)
Super Reviewer
November 27, 2008
Where to start...well I have to admit I prefer this over 'Casino' by miles, its much more interesting, I could follow the plot and more action. It looks pretty darn cool looking too, almost like a computer game really, almost too cool for its own good. All the explosions, fighting and action is highly realistic and you can almost feel the heat or smell the sweat as Bond jumps and sprints his way through the film. The car chase at the films beginning is by far the best action sequence and the stunts throughout are very impressive and painful looking in places.

But there is a problem...for me anyway, it just doesn't feel like a Bond flick anymore, I never really liked Bond but these new films are so intense and gritty I feel they have lost the Bond charm and wit that made the older films unique. There is so much top brand product placement and Bond is almost modelling his way around the film. Much like the many adverts on TV these new Bond flicks are too flash, you almost expect David Beckham and Victoria to pop in the crowd showing Bond their lastest product lines.

Another problem is Craig...he's just not a Bond, he's way too brutal and cold for me, he kills almost everyone, looks evil and would be far better as a Bond villain frankly. Even though Bond is ruthless and a killer he's also suppose to be a suave spy, intelligent, calm, collected and a lady killer. Craig is just an assassin really...kills first before thinking it through and has no remorse or morality, a very big swing from the old Bonds and too much of a swing for me. The new Bonds are now just generic gun-ho agent flicks with massive bullet totals and lots of running. Also as has been said, the action is very frantic and its hard to keep up with it, with many cuts making the set pieces a blur you find yourself wondering whats happening and whats happened.

I find myself missing the femme fatales, quirky gadgets, villains with weird scars and bizarre henchmen hehe.
They also lack any kind of special one off sequences which many old Bond films have..
eg. 'Moonraker' had the space battle and 'Jaws'

'View To a Kill' had Grace Jones being surprisingly sexy as she killed people and the Golden Gate Bridge fight finale,

'Diamonds are Forever' had 'Bambi n Thumper', a great car chase in Las Vegas and the oil rig gun battle,

'For Your Eyes Only' had the white Lotus car/sub

'Live and Let Die' had the motor boat chase and car jump that spun a full 360 in mid air,

'You Only Live Twice' had the volcano base battle, the piranha's and 'little Nelly' etc....

I guess these days we are so used to flashy stunts that not much really stands out anymore, shame really cos Bond was famed for its amazing stunt set pieces back in the day.

A good film but its not Bond anymore if you ask me, its a whole different beast now with none of the Bond charm.

Oh and the main title song was terrible...just horrible.
Super Reviewer
½ January 23, 2009
Though it's an exciting film, Quantum of Solace felt a little thin on intrigue after Casino Royale, and seemed to slip from that rarefied Bond air into standard action flick territory. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are still awesome in their roles as 007 and M, and Jeffrey Wright really can do no wrong, but the plot here is pretty much straight-ahead revenge, and a little too heavy-handed on the environmental preservation angle. Doesn't mean it sucked, and it doesn't mean I won't watch Skyfall, but a bit ho-hum compared to what the franchise reboot promised with its first installment.
Super Reviewer
½ April 24, 2012
Quantum of Solace is best seen a day after watching the much better Casino Royale for the sole reason to know who the characters are and the events that take place and the reasons behind all of that. In Quantum of Solace, the filmmakers expect the audience to already know details and remember them. I, for one, did not remember what happens in Casino Royale, or remember some characters that appeared again in Quantum of Solace. Throughout the whole film, I was confused about why certain characters were in the film at all, what events M and 007 were talking about to do with Vesper. The action is definitely well done in this film, and it's brutal and breathless action at that, but Quantum of Solace also had some great cinematography to keep everything looking great. I would highly recommend that you watch Casino Royale before seeing Quantum of Solace. It will help greatly in understanding the plot.
Super Reviewer
½ September 29, 2010
Definitely worse than it's predecessor, Casino Royale, this movie lacks in all of its aspects except for the action. There is a scene that really bothered me because of the fact that it was completely ripped off of the excellent Bourne Ultimatum... but it is so well shot and entertaining that you can't help but to be entertained. This movie was engaging. I'm always gonna despise the Bond movie score.
paul o.
Super Reviewer
December 30, 2011
Its james bond not an oscar masterpiece. The action was tight and the story was loose like it always is. Not that bad.
Super Reviewer
½ July 29, 2008
All the Bond elements are here: the international unscrupulous villain who favors tuxedo parties, some arguments with the home team over unorthodox methods, and some international ladies of unquestionable virtue. The update? This Bond is not trying to suave 'em into submission. Craig does well under this conceit, making for a solid Bond outing.
Super Reviewer
½ June 23, 2011
Another good Bond film.
Super Reviewer
½ June 18, 2011
A mixed bag. Craig is great as James Bond, but it is a significant step down in quality from Casino Royale, in its action and story.
Super Reviewer
½ April 4, 2011
James Bond is a icon, because he is so sly and cool. So is his movie cool, YES! Is it sly, no:( He barely ever talks and when he does its after a five minute action scene. The action is awesome, but I wanted to see James Bond cool and hip, not getting the crap beat out of him all the time. The plot was good but they needed to get more in it if you ask me. We can all agree Daniel Craig is a worthy James Bond, and my personal favorite beside Sean Connery. So see James Bonds new movie and enjoy it, its good. But dont enjoy it if you want something as amazing as Casino Royale.
Super Reviewer
January 22, 2011
Casino Royale was MUCH better, this was close to shit! Daniel Craig as Bond is the only thing that earns this movie it's three stars.

Grade: C+
Page 1 of 1752