'Quantum of Solace' stars Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Mathieu Ama...

Yeah, I read that it stunk...but it did crazy in London already already made around 200 million, I guess the English like crap.

Marc Forster is an overrated director. He's good at compositon, lighting and the "look" of the film. But Monster's Ball was overrated and had it's story problems in my opinion and so did "Stranger Than Fiction."

A director is most importantly a story teller, and that is were he lacks.

I believe the gun was actually from the very end of Casino Royale. If this movie starts right at the end of Casino Royale, then the gun makes some sense.

Nonetheless, most people watch Bond for action/stunts and getting the girl. Cinematography and storyline are at the end of the list.

Doesn't live up to Casino Royale?!? But Casino Royale was terrible!!! That must mean that this one really sucks!

Daniel Craig is a fine actor, but he is no James Bond! Bring back the old Bond... the new one stinks!

Bruce wrote:

Doesn't live up to Casino Royale?!? But Casino Royale was terrible!!! That must mean that this one really sucks!
Daniel Craig is a fine actor, but he is no James Bond! Bring back the old Bond... the new one stinks!

OMG...are you clueless. Casino Royale was quite possibly the best James Bond film ever made. Craig is the closest to the vision Ian Flemming had for the character. Nothing like a pedestrian Bond fan to tick off us hardcore fans.

It DOESN'T MATTER if Quantum doesn't live up to Casino Royale or any other Bond film.

Most people watch Bond films to be entertained for a few hours and then go out to chat with friends over a few beers (or martinis). And if it's a bad film, more conversation.

I'd go just to see a man in a tuxedo with good manners - that is a rare sight nowadays.

Phillips missed it on the poster, it is the connection from the last scene to this continuation in the second Craig film. Surprised Phillips missed this, I wonder what else he missed. I guess I will find out as I'm seeing it this afternoon.

Ambient wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG...are you clueless. Casino Royale was quite possibly the best James Bond film ever made. Craig is the closest to the vision Ian Flemming had for the character. Nothing like a pedestrian Bond fan to tick off us hardcore fans.

Can't compare the two types of James Bond movies. Both are good in their won way.

Ambient wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG...are you clueless. Casino Royale was quite possibly the best James Bond film ever made. Craig is the closest to the vision Ian Flemming had for the character. Nothing like a pedestrian Bond fan to tick off us hardcore fans.

I'm glad to hear you are a "hardcore fan"... but for us "pedestrian" fans we enjoy the Bond of old... you know, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan (no, Lazenby and Dalton shouldn't really count). While I agree that these new Bond movies are probably closer to the novels, the Bond of old is what most people know... and love! We want fun movies like we've been getting since 1963... not brooding, dark ones like this.

And for the record, most of us "pedestrian" fans did not enjoy Casino Royale; weak plot, poorly filmed, bad cinematography and overall not very entertaining (and don't even mention the nutsack scene... so very unnecessary!). So feel free to condescend us, but don't expect to see us in the theaters for the rebranded James Bond franchise... I'll happily stay home and watch the first 20 installments on DVD.

You misquoted the movie. The correct quote is, "There's something horribly deficient about you". Given the context of the scene and of Craig's Bond, I would say that it's spot on.

People compare this movie to Bourne because of the similarity in plot: secret agent out for revenge. The motivation; the anger; the cold, calculated movements--it's all quite similar. But, Daniel Craig is much more believable in the role. He runs like an athlete and has a body and character that exude strength (Matt Damon was the opposite--see the beach running scene in Supremacy).

In the end, it's on par with Casino Royale. It's biggest fault is a lack of character development. And, as far as I can see, it's mostly to do with the amazing performance of Eva Green in the last movie.

Sure, it's not a great movie by all-time standards. But, it's a great continuation of the last Bond and is visually stunning. For what people want in an action flick, it provides. I think it's better than any of the Bourne movies, even if it's eerily similar.

Im still not seeing this one, I just rewatched Goldeneye, what a great flick.

Fan wrote:

It DOESN'T MATTER if Quantum doesn't live up to Casino Royale or any other Bond film.
Most people watch Bond films to be entertained for a few hours and then go out to chat with friends over a few beers (or martinis). And if it's a bad film, more conversation.
I'd go just to see a man in a tuxedo with good manners - that is a rare sight nowadays.

Exactly!! It is rare to find!

Bruce wrote:

Doesn't live up to Casino Royale?!? But Casino Royale was terrible!!! That must mean that this one really sucks!
Daniel Craig is a fine actor, but he is no James Bond! Bring back the old Bond... the new one stinks!

Maybe you aren't astute enough to discern that "Casino Royale" was one of the best Bond interpretations that I can remember. Only Connery's Bond could hold a candle to Royale. Give us a break and stick with movies that are probably mindless action venues.

Bruce wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm glad to hear you are a "hardcore fan"... but for us "pedestrian" fans we enjoy the Bond of old... you know, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan (no, Lazenby and Dalton shouldn't really count). While I agree that these new Bond movies are probably closer to the novels, the Bond of old is what most people know... and love! We want fun movies like we've been getting since 1963... not brooding, dark ones like this.
And for the record, most of us "pedestrian" fans did not enjoy Casino Royale; weak plot, poorly filmed, bad cinematography and overall not very entertaining (and don't even mention the nutsack scene... so very unnecessary!). So feel free to condescend us, but don't expect to see us in the theaters for the rebranded James Bond franchise... I'll happily stay home and watch the first 20 installments on DVD.

The "Bond of old" is Sean Connery. Moore and Brosnan were cheap imitations. Craig has what Connery had. An air of calm, cool danger. I would meet up with Roger and Pierce in a dark alley anytime. The difference between the Craig Bond and the others is that while they cared for the women that they bedded, they discarded them without regret when they were no longer useful. I put Craig at #2 behind, of course, Sean Connery. That is MY OPINION. The first Bond film I saw in a theater was "Live and Let Die" at the age of 11. I have seen every one of the following Bonds on the day they were released including "Quantum of Solace" today. I also own every Bond movie made. I say this not to brag, but to point out that I could be considered a "hardcore" Bond fan. And, I wouldn't PRESUME to speak for the rest of the fans. "hardcore" or "pedestrian"!

4Royt wrote:

<quoted text>Maybe you aren't astute enough to discern that "Casino Royale" was one of the best Bond interpretations that I can remember. Only Connery's Bond could hold a candle to Royale. Give us a break and stick with movies that are probably mindless action venues.

Nobody but you is astute enough to discern anything that YOU remember!;>)

The wife and I just saw this new James Bond film and I can now understand why Sir Roger Moore is so angry with the direction this series has gone.

Bond kills so many guys in this film, I actually lost count. Plus there are car crashes, plane crashes, boat crashes, bodies crashing through windows, buildings blowing up, violence up one way and down the next, and I still have no idea what the plot of this whole thing was.

And gone is the humor and wit of the old series, not to mention the classic James Bond charm. Instead, you now have a violent, brooding loose cannon James Bond who makes Matt Damon's Jason Bourne look like a model of self-restraint. The old Bond cracked jokes, while this one spends more time cracking skulls.

All I can say here is unless you wish to shell out $10 a ticket for what amounts to watching a violent video game exploding all over the place on the screen, I can't see myself recommending this film to anyone.

Really a major disappointment.

Just finished watching it. Wasn't bad, lots of action, at times confusing.

Bruce wrote:

<quoted text>
... you know, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan (no, Lazenby and Dalton shouldn't really count)...

You forgot about Peter Sellers and Woody Allen.

Sorry, David Niven also.

Although most critics seem to like it (check out Rotten Tomatoes for a good sampling), I think some of them are missing the point. It's really a continuation of Casino Royale, and QoS is probably best viewed right after watching "Royale." That's how I watched it, and for me it really felt like I was watching the same movie. I mean that in a good way.

I'm not meaning to compare the two, but just like the Lord of the Rings films, QoS picks up right where the previous one left off. Almost literally. Whereas "Royale" might've been a little too long, QoS is a lot shorter. To me, it's just the other half (roughly) of the same story.

People are comparing QoS to the "Bourne" series, but I find Daniel Craig's Bond to be a lot more interesting. I enjoyed the older Bond films (The Connery ones, and Moore to a lesser extent) on TV as a teenager, but I feel like grew out of that pretty quickly. I wasn't even planning to see Casino Royale, but I was talked into it and was amazed at how much I liked it. Just like the current Batman movies, I felt like they'd finally gotten the character right and that this is what I'd always wanted to see. I'm looking forward to the next chapter in this series.