What did you think of the new Bond film?

Too much action. What made the first Daniel Craig Bond film good was the story line. This was like every other cheesy action film out there.

The new Bond movie was excellent. The only downside to the movie was the Bournesque type fight scenes with the camera shaking a lot. However, the plot was decent, the villan was realistic, and the acting was amazing. Daniel Craig makes a great Bond. Particularly, I like watching James Bond evolve from government spy into the super spy. I also enjoyed a sequel rather than an entirely different plot. Bringing back the "evil" organization is something that was missed from the 1990's Bond movies. The SPECTRE type organization in QUANTUM is a great and much needed addition to the franchise.

I feel that Quantum was excellent. I enjoyed the plot arc throughout and the fact that it breaks from the traditional bond mystique. To me it actually tell an ongoing story and develops new twist and turns throughout. I was on the edge of my seat during the entire show.

I do agree that Daniel Craig is the best bond since Connery and may even surpass him in some respects. The more brooding bond is appealing and more realistic that in the past.

KUDOS -- WB

Daniel Craig is not Bond . . . Pierce Brosnan was definitely believable as Bond.

ehh it was ok.

Worst Bond Film featuring Worst BOND ever. The SPY type typical bond trend has gone. The typical background music lost (or transformed). Bond lacks humor.

The movie is too random. Too fast. Too much of camera work. More like a action film rather than a good bond film.

I wish they can come up with a better BOND next time - definitely with a better story.

I found the movie to be a whole lot better than the critics gave it credit for. It was extremely exciting, and Bond proves to be a complex character that always knows how to handle himself. Daniel Craig is phenomenal.

This is James Bond with a villain that could be taken down by your average security guard. You have zero chemistry between bond and the female lead and they never get together. The makers of this movie seem to think if you just slap together scenes from other better Bond films that you have a Bond movie. This movie is nothing but a series of disconnected action sequences with zero in the way of plot. The extremely limited amount of applause coming from the audience at the end was die hard Bond fans trying to convince themselves they had seen a real Bond film.

I thought it was honestly one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. It started with the opening credits that seemed like the longest opening credits I've ever sat through. How long were those opening credits, followed by the first chase scene that lasted another 20 minutes. The first 30 minutes of the movie are wasted. Finally we get to a scene, there is 5 minutes of dialog that explains nothing, I don't think Bond even spoke, and then another chase scene. Following by chasing in cars, boats and planes! Finally by the last 20 minutes of the movie, I sort of caught the gist of what was going on. What a waste of time.

Those that critique the new Bond for being all action and that Bond is more stoic need to look at the big picture in how it fits with Casino Royale. Bond's demeanor fits perfectly. Since we are not that far removed from Vesper's death, it's understandable that Bond has this edge to him. He is on a mission partially blinded by his quest for revenge. However, as the movie rolls on you can see Bond change emotionally. Camille helps with that. If anything, you see Bond's character grow in this film and helps you understand how he becomes the way he is (remember this is a prequel of sorts).

This is a fantastic film and definitely a great extension of Casino Royale. This definitely has a trilogy feel to it and I'm anxious to see the next one now!

The carnage per minute meter is in overdrive...

I didn't like the new Bond for several reasons.
1) The opening song and sequence was simply dreadful.
2) Bond doesn't kill the person responsible for Vesper's death. And if he does, it is almost hiden so deep in the script that no one leaving the theater noticed it.
3) The "Quantum" group's members and goals are never explained.
4) The Bond girls are utterly forgettable.
5) Bond doesn't even "get" the main "Bond Girl", he just gives her a quick kiss and then drops her off in some run down town.
6) Way to much action and not enough story for a Bond movie. I kept waiting to see Jason Bourne show up.
7) No cool gadgets at all. I know it's supposed to be a stripped down version of Bond, but at least one or two cool gadgets would have been nice.

Bond films are about gadgets, breathtaking action and gorgeous bond girls.. This film that none of the three..

As a fan of Ian Fleming's Bond novels I give this movie an "A".

The orignial James Bond character – dark, lonely, myserious -has been retrieved.

This Bond is the interesting and engimatic figure of the early novels and, to a lesser extent, of the Connery films.

Some of the action sequences were a bit to computer game-ish for me.

What was the plot ?

lack of substance and no "Bond,James Bond"... To me it was ok.
I would rate this movie B

no plot, garbled voices, to much collateral damage, to violent, ehhhhh!

He's a cool guy; good looking. I can see him making all kinds of great action films. But when I look at him, I just don't think: 'Bond...James Bond.' For me, Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan fit that role. I don't think Daniel Craig will go down in history as a favored Bond. But that's just me. To each his own.

um..... bond isn't bond without bond gadgets. And the cool cell phone and computer screens don't count.

I thought this was the worst Bond film ever...and at age 54
I've seen them all...too fast on the editing floor and it started off with the worst Bond theme song ever...I thought I was watching Cloverfield all over again and even the popcorn didn't taste right!!!
Roger Moore might be right...He was a lover ...Daniel Craig is a murderer....we need a do over....

Like Daniel Craig. Nothing wrong with departing from some of the typical "Bondisms" although they have taken that too far. Frenetic action is still not a substitute for a good story line (arc, what arc?).
I can do without some of the campiness of earlier Bonds, but he still has to be Bond, James Bond.

I agree that this film was a bit too much Bourne-ian and not enough Bond-ian for my tastes. Bond is the original, it shouldn't be copying any other films or characters. It was still enjoyable and I would recommend it. But it would be nice to have Bond define the genre again, not just be part of the pack.

I also agree that Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery. Craig becomes Bond in the film, not just an actor playing Bond. Looking forward to many more Bond films with Craig.

Everyone I was with thought this movie sucked. No one got the plot because it just doesn't make any sense! Daniel Craig turned in another totally dull performance as Bond and hardly had anything to say. He wasn't even able to score with the main girl... maybe he should improve his game and watch VH1's Pickup Artist, lol.

I agree witn Ankan....too random, too fast. They put too much effort into highly coreographed fight scenes and then move the camera so quickly you can't follow what's going on.
I saw the movie two days ago and am still trying to figure out the point of half the characters. The story line was flimsy at best and the characters had no depth.
Daniel Craig is an AMAZING actor and this movie is completely unworthy of his talent and an insult to Ian Fleming.

I hope this is Daniel Craig's last Bond movie. And Dr. Leary has it right, there was nothing to seperate this movie from a Bourne movie.
Bring back John Cleese and the gadgets!

The action was great, but I missed the humor that James Bond used to show in the older movies.

No Moneypenny and no Q. How do you even consider this a Bond film. Oh yeah it took 30+ secs to show a naked chick in the opening credits. Come on. Other than that it was pretty good it just lacked a lot of humerous one liners from Bond.

I thought the film was amazing. Although I'd agree the Casino Royale plot was more to the liking of the majority of movie goers, if you let the action ride hand-in-hand, you could enjoy the incredible action (that thank God was more realistic than the 007s during the 80s and 90s). I would pay to see it again (that's my highest compliment for a movie). And I think Daniel Craig is the best actor yet to play Bond. He was able to capture the dark part of Bond that was lost in previous versions. I finally believed there is a lot of substance to the character.

If you want a happy-go-lucky secret agent, watch Austin Powers. If you want to see an amazing childhood fantasy of being the world's foremost MI6 agent come to life on screen, watch this movie.

Possibly the best Bond movie yet. Craig portrays the character closest to Fleming's creation than any previous. Tough, ruthless, and driven. The movie itself is fast and dazzling. This is not the gimmick-laden charade with a preening Bond. These cars get damaged and the hero bleeds.
Not perfect – the plot is sometimes hard to follow and some characters tend to blend.

Ya know what, i'm wrong... I was wanthing this film to be your typical run of the mill Bond flick... I was wrong. I'm an idiot. The movie is not some rehashed character running some rehashed Bond plot with the banging some rehashed Bond Girls

Craig brings an entirely new aspect to the movie genre and it's refreshing.

I'm glad it was different than the same old Bond of the past.

Welcome to the new Millennium everyone. Don't expect, want or long for what once was... Evolution baby! Do so or die. It's that simple.

I found Daniel Craig mesmerizing… the eyes, the body, and the walk! I had my doubts going into this movie but he has won me over. I’m a true Bond fan once again. For a minute there, I felt like I was cheating on Pierce Bronsnan, but by the end of the movie, I could understand why they replaced him. The action was nonstop and very fast paced! Definitely a must see!

Awesome movie! Crazy non stop action left and right with an excellent balance of story and plot twists that kept me guessing until the end

Have these writers and producers even seen the Bond films that came before? If they wanted to reinvent Bond they could have picked just any spy and left Bond alone.

I watched "Casino Royale" the night before to remind myself of the story line, so I was sorely disappointed with "Quantum of Solace." As rotten as its title. Couldn't tell who was doing what in the chase/fight sequences, there was no humor, no charm, none of what we go to Bond films for. Craig is great, but he deserves more from the film makers. Keep Marc Forster as far away from the franchise as possible from now on, the man doesn't know what he's doing with the action genre.

Daniel Craig looks too much like Putin to be Bond. Story line lags way behind the action.

Disappointing. None of the charm, humor, quirkiness and engaging charactersof the Connery/Moore versions. The plot doesn't hang together and the action scenes are more noise and camera angles than enjoyable substance. On a 1-10 scale, maybe a 4.

The plot was a little hard to follow, but overall I thought it was a good, entertaining film. I think Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond. I think it's a nice change to give Bond a little emotional vulnerability.

car chase,fight,boat chase,fight..not much else going on..i'm a big bond fan and was abit disappointed..i understand that it's a different type of movie but still needed more bond spying then fighting..and have the fight and chases when needed not all threw the movie..but was good

Marginal...very marginal

Without romance and gadgets, it's barely Bond. Not a bad movie, but not really a good Bond movie. And there were no complex combat scenes or good villainy. Major characters were killed off-screen, like Mathis, for example.

Too much action and not enough plot, or not enough comprehensible plot. The action seems forced in some way, the director needs more training in how to film an action sequence. Daniel Craig seems like a Bourne clone instead of 007.
Pierce Brosnan is much more believable as 007, sauve lady's man with lots of cool gadgets.

The new Bond films relies to much on special effects that we have seen over and over again...the kids like them...and makes money but what happened to the original creative plots used in the BEST James Bond movie From Russia with Love.
I like the "new and improved Bond"… needs more charter development.

The Quantum of Solace was HORRIBLE! I kept looking at my watch wondering when it would be over.

Daniel Craig and the action sequences were fine but there really was no plot. Instead, the motivation for the entire movie was easily recognized during the first 10 mins of the movie and the supporting characters were useless and not at all interesting.

Wait for the DVD. Or better yet, wait 'till it's on cable.

Great film, great Bond, terrible song! I see the arc to the next more "Bond-like" film.

A solid, if unremarkable, effort. A 6 or 7 out of 10. Craig is the best Bond ever - cold, ruthless, stylish, unpredictable, and not foppish or flippant like Moore. But we need to hear the Bond music during the movie! They've really stopped using it of late. And we need much better villains than the lame-o from this flick. Keep Forster away from future films.

Yes, I agree..........too much action scenes and not enough substance! and the ending was horrible! Craig was good thought. I wouldn't say it was a bad movie, but it could have been a lot better. Also, Bond needs to get the "Gigolo" back on him.

Simply a good follow up to the last movie. DC has brought back the toughness of SC but has to mature some with possibly some "cute bond humor" and "1 or 2 believable gadgets"

Film: B+
Action: A, (but maybe too much?)
Girls: B None that I would toss out of bed.
Cars: A+ Sweet, how many AM's did they trash?
Plot: C+, did he actually kill the person who killed Vespar?
Nemisis: B, need someone meaner, more cruel

I wasn't too keen on the idea of a direct sequel to begin with, but I think Quantum pulled it off as best as possible. I do agree with comments about it being too Bourne-like and not Bond-like, but I think that somewhat fits with the idea that Bond is just starting off as a double-O in these movies. At the end of Quantum, I think Bond finally settles into his place in life, and that gives me hope that the next movie will have the humor/gadgets/all-around "Bond-isms" that makes a great Bond film. I will be very disappointed if Moneypenny is still absent, but I'm torn about including a Q. Desmond Llewelyn is irreplaceable.

All around a satisfying experience. 4/5

I read all the critiques and I am a little sad how people can't understand that Bond movies don't have to be all the same! Finally a director who's got some "balls"... I applaud the people who enjoyed the movie for what it was and not for what it should of been! Nobody is perfect, not Bond, not you, not anyone.... Action packed, riveting and an excellent storyline.... a definate 9/10!

First, I'm confused about the final confrotnation but think it was meant to be vague for people to have their own interpretation of Bond. I think Bond clearly killed the guy in the end of the film. Throughout the movie when pressed about killing others he used a sarcastic tone to retort as if to say "none of your business" to his superiors. I thought it was powerful that we did not see it because that was a moment that Bond had been waiting for and it was his moment alone (I pictured anything but a slow death as requested). The other option is that after Olga's speech to him he decided he did not need revenge in his life and instead took the guy in for more intel to take down a much larger cause than his own vendetta.

Second, Bond's love just died minutes before the events of the current movie takes place and people are wondering why there wasn't more sex? Get real.

My biggest beef of the film was that I found it senseless and distasteful that he actually slept with the agent midway through the movie.

Aside from that, a very good film.

I thought the movie was very good, however, I think that they shouldn't have used all the camera shaking during the fight scenes. I think that makes them less exciting.

I felt like the film should have been called: "James Bond and the Elaborate Rube Goldberg Machine." The amount of gratuitous violence and oftentimes confusing chase scenes made for a good adrenalyne rush, but if I hadn't seen the film at midnight and half-asleep, I might have felt confused by the lack of plot and congruity in the conclusion.
Also, while the film was a direct continuation of "Casino Royale," I think viewers who didn't catch that Bond enstallment really missed out on a large chunk of "Solace"'s substance. If the two were supposed to be one massive film, then they should have stayed one massive film, instead of two vastly different parts of the same beast. Marc Foster is definitely capable of better things (see "The Kite Runner", "Monster's Ball", et. al.)

I have seen every Bond movie, and I am impressed with the new direction that the films are taking.

The old films are cheesy by comparison... even the Brosnan era Bond films are terrible when you stack them up against the Craig films.

I mean seriously, Bond in the past has been overly glib, even in the face of some serious circumstances. Craig brings a dry wit to the Bond films that was very much needed.

Quantum was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. I cannot wait for the next installment.

This was the worst Bond movie ever! Not enough story line, the special effects were good but overall and not a Bond movie. Daniel's acting was OK – but he is has a long way to go to be able to play James Bond.

It was fantastic. Forget about the old Bond. For anyone who has ever read any of Ian Fleming's books, this is the real James Bond. He is a spy, an assassin. No gadgets, just pure Bond!!!!!

Typo! "character"...sorry...

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was put off by the handling of the chase scenes. They were all edited so chopily and framed so closely, half of the time I couldn't tell what was happening. Also there wasn't enough meat in between the chases ... it's as if the plot was just an excuse to get you to the next chase, much like soft-core porn does with lame plotlines between hookups.

As someone else said, my downfall might've been watching Casino Royale again right before seeing Quantum. That one was so smoothly paced, that this one really threw me. It did leave me wanting the next one, though. Craig has really brought something awesome to the role.

Just saw Quantum,action action action,you have to see it again to catch some things you miss first time, if any thing could have been more of the bond girls.

Apparently the casual viewer doesn't deem James Bond worthy unless he's swapping lame sexual innuendos with "M" and spending the rest of the time tracking down some tail between car chases and martinis. Oh, and lets not forget that the casual Bond viewer apparently needs gadgets to make the experience complete. Tell you what, "casual viewers". Please stay away from the theater. The new James Bond series is too intelligent for you. I'm sure you can satisfy your 007 fix with a viewing of the "classic" James Bond film, Die Another Day, or the equally "sensational", "The World is not Enough. Leave the new Bond films to those who appreciate the reincarnation of a film series that was all but dead in the water.

To all those here criticizing the new Bond movie and Daniel Craig, I say this: Go back and watch the early Bond movies. They are just straight up silly. Seriously, I think most people have these well ingrained memories of the early Bond movies that just aren't accurate anymore. The original Bond movies were good merely because of the concept, and because there was nothing to compare them to. If you go back and watch them now, they are just plain cheesey. That's all there is to it. Daniel Craig is by leaps and bounds the best James Bond. He's a great actor, and let's be honest, he looks the part. You can actually believe Daniel Craig is doing the things you see him do. 50 year old men in average shape cannot do the things that James Bond was always doing. These new Bonds have a very real and raw element to them that the others don't even come close to touching. If you want unrealistic, pointless, and clichéd-to-death romance, watch the old ones.

I thought it was very good. Lot's of action and less of those one-liners and sexist innuendos. However, I do miss the gadgets. The secret pen, the attaché case with buttons and the cars...you have to have the cars. The chase scenes were great. The last action scene in the hotel was fantastic. Overall I give it a "B". James Bond movies have always been different from other action movies. This new Bond series needs to mature a bit and listen to the viewers before they get an "A".

I thought Quantum was an excellent Bond film and if you pay attention there's plenty of depth to be had. Reading some of the comments here I have to feel that some people decided to hate the movie before seeing it and some of the "Craig is not Bond" nonsense that I thought had been slapped down 2 years ago seems to still be simmering. Too bad as they're losing out on a pretty good Bond film. It isn't the best of the lot, but it definitely is a worthy followup to Casino Royale and works well as the middle part of a trilogy, which is what it is - a fact a lot of folks seem to be unaware.

I personally prefer the darker, colder Bond (a la Daniel Craig). I've heard complaints that there aren't enough "quips", but one-liner's just make a movie cheesy. The new style of Bond movies is a dramatic departure from the somewhat smarmy Bond of the past, so viewers might be dissappointed if they are expecting the old Bond. But viewed objectively, its an exciting, polished action adventure with a VERY sexy new Bond. An interesting side note – the new movies are a lot less misogonistic than the previous collection – Daniel Craig's Bond seems to have an actual heart, though it is a very cold one.

This IS Bond. Bond is not slapstick and not all witty remarks. The Bond true to Ian Fleming has a dark side. People overlook the fact that a person who kills for a living, even for the "good guys", has to have a certain personality to do this.

The Bond in the early Fleming works was very rough. This was first illustrated in Casino Royale, but the death of Vesper only heightened this. Consider the depth of feeling he had for Vesper (and consider how you might feel if you lost someone you were in love with) and then consider his broken background, his access to weapons, and his skillset and you'll realize the blind rage under which he operates is not only plausible, but the only believable route.

He is searching for a quantum of solace...that is, the smallest bit of comfort, of relief, from his intense grief.

Although I enjoyed watching the Bonds with Brosnan, the Bond franchise was turning from witty remarks, ingenuity, and personal skills to over-the-top action and complete reliance on technology. There can be intense action and use of technology without it being the driving force of a movie.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE succeeds in balancing these different traits because although it is highly action-packed, the action is not action for action's sake (as it is in the recent Bonds), but enables us to step into Bond's shoes and feel the jolting, crazy, feelings. We see a little bit of things through his eyes.

If I had never seen any of the previous Bond films, I would like these movies better. It is very obvious that someone somewhere is trying to "reinvent" James Bond. Take a cue from Coke who tried messing with their formula a long time ago–IT DID'NT WORK!
I miss the exchange between Bond and Q when going over the gadgets (yes I miss those too) and how they work. By the way, if Bond had the Aston Martin from Goldfinger, he could have avoided all the damage to his car in the opening sequence of Quantum (also the dumbest name for any movie, let alone a Bond movie).
I like the action, but it was hard to tell the difference between this and a Bourne movie. I only hope they get better as time progresses. I am willing to give Daniel Craig a chance to prove himself as Bond, but I do miss Brosnan. He was the best since Sean Connery who will always be the epitome of Bond–hands down.

I agree that Quantum of Solace was entirely too action-packed. The plot was not very strong, especially around the Quantum Group. They're no SPECTRE, at least not yet. It leaves a lot of questions, but I'm a huge fan of Bond movies and look forward to having a few things answered in the next adaptation.

I love Daniel Craig's version of Bond. He's got a good mix of internal broodiness & machismo. Since Casino Royale was a prequel to other Bonds, and he only obtained 00 status in the last movie, it seems he's still developing his ability to judge when to kill and when not alongside with his charm. His rememberance of his first kill with the Bolivian agent/Bond girl gave good insight on his own development.

I also enjoyed the homage to Goldfinger with the girl on the bed, but felt that it seemed a little out of place. Why oil when oil was not what Quantum were after?

The new Bond movies are not good to me, they have departed too far from what Bond is supposed to be. Where are the gadgets? Where are the over the top villians? Its like the director was studying Borne movies instead of Bond movies, please get back to the original formula.

I loved it! I love Daniel Craig... he has this magnetism that makes you want to know more. It was hard to follow, though, and I found myself wondering who was up to what, but hey, we need movies to make us think sometimes. The evil group is after WATER!!!!

Disjointed story line.........if you hadn't seen Casino Royale, I doubt you could understand the plot line since they picked up where the last one left off. I'm not sure who the "bad guys everywhere" were supposed to be or what their implied threat was? The Bond Villain was lame and once again not sure how his evilness impacted the planet other than no water in Bolivia? The car chase scenes were blurry and hard to follow. I hold the director responsible. None of the glamour or humor normally associated with James Bond, I hold the writers responsible. I do like Daniel Craig as Bond but he can obviously do only so much with the material given him. Do yourself a favor and stay home from this one.

I thought it was excellent – this Bond is a new and complex character, and while I do miss some of the innuendoes and playfulness of Bonds in the past, I think Daniel Craig has brought a lot of nuance and humanity to Bond. On one hand, he is a killer, which to a certain extent, he's been bred for; on the other hand, he has lost someone he loved and is trying to deal with that the only way he knows how. Sure, I would love to see the gadgets and legions of sexy Bond girls, but you have to look at this Bond as a depiction of the way he "started" – falling in love despite his training and background and then being betrayed and heart-broken, seeking revenge and vowing that he won't make the same mistake again. Vesper had him pegged – she got below the radar, and it turned out badly. He is now more hardened and cynical. Now we will start to see the sarcastic, playful, womanizing Bond because that's his armor. I love seeing the layers to a character that, at times, has been a caricature. Go Daniel!

The worst Bond Movie ever. Nothing but a vehicle for chase scenes and action. Where was the intense story and plot? This was nothing more than a cheap way to make money.

"Casino Royale" reset the bar on many levels, whereas "Quantum" maintained the status quo. As many would agree, Craig's portrayal of Bond is a long way from the previous incarnations, and in my opinion rightly so. The urbane and witty Bond of the 60's worked for that time, and Craig's interpretation works for this time.

Daniel Craig is great. However, where were the gadgets? And we need a little drama to go with all that testosterone. It was a good Bond movie, not a great one. The leading ladies were as gorgeous as ever. And oh my gosh, how lucky are we to have Judi Dench as M!

I agree there was to much camera action moving around. You couldn't tell who was doing what to who or what was going on. Daniel Craig was good. Missed the humor the other Bond films had.

Best Bond film (coupled with Casino Royale) since Thunderball.

The plot, people, is NOT about an evil consortium hording resources in Bolivia. It is about M and Bond developing their working relationship. Is Bond going to be M's agent, or just another short lived double O? That's the question the both of them are trying to work through, and that's the emotional level Bond is acting on.

In other words, unlike the Moore and Brosnan films, these two when put together make a Bond film for grown ups (for a change.) It's the reading between the lines that make this film enjoyable.

I like the approach the film makers are taking in going back to the beginning. Adding in a SPECTRE style arch enemy group gives the series some legs as well.

I'm back to being a Bond movie fan.

To quote Mike:

As a fan of Ian Fleming’s Bond novels I give this movie an “A”.

The orignial James Bond character – dark, lonely, myserious -has been retrieved.

This Bond is the interesting and engimatic figure of the early novels and, to a lesser extent, of the Connery films.

Some of the action sequences were a bit to computer game-ish for me.

I 100% agree with you. This is the REAL Bond, the one Ian Fleming created. Not the cheesy Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan Bond's.

It SUCKED, like all bond movies. Only complete IDIOTS would enjoy these farces.

Honestly, I miss Roger Moore.

This was my first Bond movie and it was a fun watch. My only complaint is the action scenes seemed to go on forever and the storyline was played out very quickly.

"B-" for a James Bond movie, "A+" for a Jason Bourne movie.

Love Daniel Craig in this role. Love the gritty physicality. And for those who couldn't follow the plot, eh, sorry but bone up on your geopolitcal studies. It wasn't that difficult. I am glad to get a break from all the gadgets...I fell asleep during the last Bond film featuring Brosnan (and I LIKED him). I wasn't much of a fan of the song...very forgettable.

Not impressed. This film is basically Bourne Identity. They've turned him (Bond) into some action film character. He's no longer the slick spy, he's now, well, will simply punch or shoot you robot one man army.

Too bad..

The first neo-Marxist Bond film. Former Soviet spy, Kim Philby, must have been the model here. All the bad guys are American, imperilist, capitalist or Zionist The international puppet-masters who are "everywehere?" Well, we know who the new Bond puppet masters think they are. And the Marxists in Venezuela just want to help poor people (as opposed to helping themselves to power)? Bond is now a supporter of Hugo Chavez, I guess. The Hollywood types behind this movie are multi-millionaire pseudo-Marxists.

Casino Royale blew the new one out of the water. Craig is perfect as bond, but the story wasn't captivating in Quantum. I felt like I was watching Mission Impossible 4. I was on the edge of my seat waiting for Eva Green to make an appearance – I still don't believe Vespa is dead. Good soundtrack but the story was lacking.

I thought the movie was great. I do agree it was a little bit more like a bourne movie instead of a bond movie though. The action scenes were fantastic, the only thing the movie could have used a little bit more of would have been Bond hooking up with the girl.

Definitely the worst opening song and singer ever! They may as well have had Ashley Simpson lip sync it.

After that, a very enjoyable movie!

Daniel Craig is 2nd only to Sean Connery. If anyone remembers the start of the series and the novels, Bond was a lonely enigmatic character. This Bond stays true to that and ditches all the sugary fluff that too many movies had. Bond was a cold, disptached, tormented person who was dooi g his job and this movie portrays that perfectly.

The action scenes needed some help, but I blame the director for that.

Overall, an A-

Craig is a great Bond – and I look forward to seeing him in more Bond movies. This particular movie (Bourne Solace) was good... needs a better story though. And how is it that Bond can take out 3 agents in an elevator with his hands cuffed – but the wimpy villan almost does him in at the end?

I love the new Bond and Quantum of Solace is action packed. Daniel Craig's an updated version of an old and outdated Bond.

I can't wait for the next movie!

Just OK. I'd give it a "B" But so dissapointing after "Casino Royale"
These issues stand out.
1) No set up for opening car chase, no matter how good.
2) Shot too close, no scope of viewing action scenes
3) Not enough story and plot, just all action oriented.
4) Horrible opening musical number and credit sequence..and to think I thought "Die Another Day": was bad.
5) Villian just adequate..not enough explanation ot make him truly evil.
6) Bond Girls less interesting than usual...we don't even really care what happens to them.
7) CGI effects at time were really lame.
Ends without really any answrs to obvious questions.

On the plus side.
1) Craig is still excellent, one of the best Bond's ever.
2) Judi Dench as "M" has a lot of good scenes. And the chemistry with Bond is good.
3) Stunt work is rather good, just wish it had been more visually thrilling.

So, all in all, a good Bond film, but I do hope that the producers don't delude themselves, and see all the $$$ this film is making and make another, as it may destroy the series.
Listen to the viewers and some of the critics, and get back to what we say in "Royale". Advance the character, keep some of the action, add more depth, more plot, and better Bond Girls, and this franchise can continue for years to come.

Too much action especially with hand held cameras but very good. Daniel Craig is by far the best James Bond. I liked it almost as much as Casino Royale. I would rate it a B+.

The movie should have given some background to remind us of where Casino Royale left things-two years is a long time to expect theater-goers to remember. Also, I would have preferred more character development and less action. Having said all that, I enjoyed the movie and Craig is great as Bond.

This was a good action flick but not a good James Bond move. Where was the sauve Bond who made witty comments to the bad guys and talked women into bed with his charm and good looks? Where was the James Bond theme music, which is an important part of any chase scene? Blowing up the hydrogen container would have killed them both. How did the bad guy get two bullets in his head when he was dropped off in the desert alone? How did Bond get the girl in bed without some sort of interaction? Why didn't he get some kind of justice by killing the bad guy and why wasn't there an explanation given as to why Bond let the bad guy off at the end of the moving without plugging him? Come on. This movie spells the demise of the Bond we all know and love. Bring him BACK next time!

Thank you Dave for making this point... Exactly my thought as well! Nicely said...
here's my quote: "Time for change doesn't only apply to Obama's punchline!"

The Bond Franchise is targeting expanded demographics now – young couples, single women and is hoping to not to lose out on the men demographics. Tough task, and they failed miserably.

With this expanded demographics that they are targeting – they cannot show bond-girls as 'use-and-throw' as his fancy multi-million euro gadgets; and Bond had to get 'emotional'.

Much better than the critics claimed. I love that the series is finally following a real story arc. The action was amazing and the story was much better than the reviewers are saying.

I would like to see more of the Bond-isms, at least one "Bond, James Bond." But that's my only real complaint.

I love the Bond series, and there have been some truly awful Bond films in the past, this is not one of them. I can't wait for the next one.

It has restored my faith in the Bond franchise!
Can't wait for the next one...

Jason's review below is spot on. We don't want to see "The Bond Ultimatum"
-
Jason Glugla November 17th, 2008 11:12 am ET

This is James Bond with a villain that could be taken down by your average security guard. You have zero chemistry between bond and the female lead and they never get together. The makers of this movie seem to think if you just slap together scenes from other better Bond films that you have a Bond movie. This movie is nothing but a series of disconnected action sequences with zero in the way of plot. The extremely limited amount of applause coming from the audience at the end was die hard Bond fans trying to convince themselves they had seen a real Bond film.

Saw Craig's first attempt at Bond and didn't like the way he or the producers are interpreting Bond. I like him, I just don't like what they are doing with Bond. The one I know and love doesn't get the stuffing kicked out of him and he doesn't play a low class game called Texas Hold 'Em that's all done to attract newer younger and bigger audiences. They lost me. Because of that first movie, I won't be going to any others. He's not Bond and never will be.

Too much pandering to a different generation who live for special effects and big action scenes. I loved Connery and Moore, I liked Brosnan a lot. They had style, class, and grace. This Bond is one who smirks too much and doesn't give me anything.

Still a Bond fan, but not this Bond.

So far I'm finding Daniel Craig's Bond a bit too openly intense for the character. Intensity and anger have always been kept mostly under the surface for the cinematic Bond, even for Connery, and I've found that to be part of his appeal. No matter how much rage or how much the killer instinct was engaged, Bond alway kept a purposful "I don't give a sh*t" veneer on the surface. Granted, Craig is a better actor than anyone since Connery. Ironically, however, Craig's Bond, though seen by many as "deeper" than previous incarnations, actually seems to me to simply be more obvious. He's intense, he's angry, he's a killer...and that seems to be about it. Not Craig's fault, I've seen him play much more varied characters–it's just that this beat-up, steely-eyed, pursed-lip thing is the vision the filmmakers have for the new series. I mean, for this re-booting of the series are we to think that Bond starts off dead inside and then eventually learns to dig pulling the birds and swilling martinis, etc? Will we ever see a Bond again who seems to enjoy what he's doing?
Even at it's goofiest, the main thing the Bond series had going for it was that no one else could truly replicate it's formula. And now the Bond series is doing its best to be something else. It's not boring, but it's not unique, either.

I think Nick S. put it well, we need to look at the big picture here people. The franchise started over with Casino Royale (for good reason). We are watching the making of what we know as Bond. That means, no suave charm, no hip gadgets from Q, and no worthless, disposable Bond girls. Instead we are left to focus on the Bond character as a whole, and how these characters will ultimately shape him. A direction I think "Royale" and "Solace" did quite nicely, as "Royale" was a story of emotion and Solace is a story of revenge from being robbed of it. I will admit I was less impressed with the shaky camera work of the opening chase sequence, especially in comparison to that of Casino Royale (which was perfection). However, I think Craig is shaping up to be my favorite Bond ever. I really like the more believable, realistic approach they are taking with the series. After all, Brosnan did surf to safety on a wave from an iceberg in Die Another Day....So I definitely cannot complain about the restructuring.

There will only be ONE Bond sean connery

I like the direction the franchise is going. The people that are comparing Bond to Bourne need to remember that this franchise has been around twice as long, and we're dealing with two different types of "heroes." I especially enjoy how Bond and M are developing a chemistry that we never have had before. The fact that everyone kept calling her "Mum" was cool on so many levels, especially considering that I really do feel like she would have no problem sending one of her "kids" out to die (see Goldeneye). My one complaint is that we haven't seen Q in a while. I realize it won't be the same without Desmond, but let's not forget that Cleese was giving that role some youth and stodginess, just like the old Q. Good effort!

A+ The best Bond and Bond movie ever. I love the meaner, rough and tumble Bond.

I thought Quantum of Solace was "okay," a little on the bland side overall. I can see what they were after in this film and I agree with the direction they've taken the franchise, but the villain and his plot were just not up to par for a Bond movie. As far as the lack of gadgets, with today's technology what can they come up with that's really new and reasonably believable? Still, leave too many of the quintessential Bond elements out and you're just making another Bourne film (not that those are bad, but we're talking Bond here).

With the story begun in Casino Royale now wrapped up, I'm really looking forward to seeing what they do for a third film. They have an excellent actor in the Bond role with Daniel Craig, so that's a start.

p.s. The opening theme to Quantum? How'd that happen??? lol

1. Craig was very good - better than last movie.
2. Action scenes are too frenetic - several stuntmen were injured making those scenes, and most of them are too difficult to follow.
3. Villain Mathieu Amalric was terrifically horrible.
4. Olga Kurylenko needs acting lessons.
5. Plot was thin - are you telling me nobody in Bolivia noticed that big.... wait! ... don't want to spoil the plot - but you get the idea.

This was a great Bond movie! I really enjoyed it. I think Daniel Craig

First, Daniel Craig is a terrific bond. H almost erases Moore, Dalton and Brosnan from history, and makes Connery look even more like the gem he was. Terrific grittiness to the man, amazing looks. I almost don't even miss the suavete Connery brought to the role, the great fitting suits and carriage has lots to do with that. Look, I do not go see bond movies for their merit as mindbending, expanding or any other quality... Bond flicks are their own genre and deserve to be treated as such. Fact is, this one has had the biggest opening pot of any of 'em. As for the film, yup, a little too Bourne-esque, but man, what a fun time!!! Keep 'em comin' Broccolis!

This was a great Bond movie! I really enjoyed it. I think Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond actor. I can't wait for the next Bond movie! I just hope that the new Bond movie does have a little more story to it and just as much as action as Quantum!

What a dissapointment. Pierce was the best Bond ever. This new "Blond" Bond is just an authorized killer of anyone that he encounters. The movie had no real plot to follow, too many villians, and the acting was flat. Don't waist your money or time on this one.

I think Daniel Craig does a great job capturing the Bond of Fleming's novels. The best parts of the film were definitely the parts between the action scenes. Craig is a good actor and his scenes with Dench were great, as was the scene where he outwits the bad guys at the opera house. The worst parts were the action scenes (and I like a good action scene). The camera shifted so quickly that I could never tell who was who in a fight or chase scene, so it never built any tension. Was that Bond almost crashing there, or was it the bad guy? Couldn't tell, so it was hard to care. Overall though, I enjoyed the movie – I like the novels, so I really like Craig's version of a tougher, more dangerous Bond. (And yes – we need more of the original Bond music!)

I thought the movie was good even though I too found it lacking in Bond-isms. There was at least one though, sorta (martini). The biggest thing that struck me is I believe there was an homage to a famous scene from Goldfinger albeit was fleeting on the screen.
Overall, enjoyable film.

This was quite simply not a Bond movie. At best it was a bad version of the Mission Impossible/Bourne franchise without a Tom Cruise or Matt Damon to prop it up....

It might be more in keeping with Fleming's novels, but it is not a Bond movie.

Throwing away the world's most valuable film franchise with a B-list British actor is just unforgiveable. Pierce Brosnan was so much better..

I'm confused as to whythis was even called a bond movie other than the name of the character was Bond. They could have slapped on a different title and I would have hardley noticed the difference. That copycat scene from Goldfinger (dead girl in oil this time around) felt so artificial. Where was Q? And the display of new gadgets. And where was the charm and romance? I also miss the over the top villians that are trying to take over the world. This businessman is the villian realism is lame. What was so great of Bond movies in the past was the larger than life escapism. AND WHERE IS MONEYPENNY???

Come on, by itself this movie was okay, but to call it Bond when it is clearly missing so many fundementals of "Bond"...

The cinematography, which unfortunately has been popular ever since Bourne, is absolutely terrible. I am not sure what makes movie-movies think that it is interesting when it makes a great movie look generic.

However...

Daniel Craig IS Bond. And he makes a damn good one.

I thought overall it was very good. The story line was weak, the action and teh acting was superb. This is a very serious Bond film, and we see right off the top that this si a departure from what Bond used to be. No cheesy one liners, no tongue in cheek humor here. This is a serious film. Which is okay.

I get the sense that because of how the Bourne movies had been compared to the Bond Franchise, and many critics saying the Bourne movies were better, that this new Bond movie is trying to be more like the Bourne franchise.

It's all fine and good, the film stands on its own. Daniel Craig brings genuine acting to the role, not posing. there's no "Bond, james Bond" self-flagellation that we see in every other Bond films that screams out 'Look at me, I'm a James Bond Film". Thus the film is more commitetd to just being what it is , an action film. It is freeing I think, as Craig's Bond is more committed to following the cheap story line than he had any business doing.

What didn't work for me was Dame Judi Dench. Half of the dialogue is indecipherable. Because of that, we should be glad that the film was mostly action. If you asked me about the plot, or even why Bond was on a killing spree, I couldn't really describe it to you in a sentence.

But what saves the film is Daniel Craig. Sure Brosnan looks like Bond, but Craig actually ACTS like Bond. He saved this trainwreck and made it rather good despite itself.

IT WAS GOOD....BUT THEY FORGOT TO ADD A PLOT TO THE MOVIE

NO MONEYPENNY! Enough Said!

I thought it was great.....Daniel Craig plays a very very sexy bond....but he is sexy anyway

I haven't seen it yet, but I think after seeing previews and clips from it, I think this is more high Def than the old flim screen. 1. I think that the chase seen in the last one was really great. It just needs some time to get us in the mood. I am going to see it next weekend and hopefully when I do there should be some better comments I hope. All great bond flims I have seen were so so, but not as great as Casino Royale last year, I always figured I could be James Bond, but a much younger version of him. It was always Q who came up with the divices to blow the bad guys up. I would give it 5 stars at least for best action flim.

I miss the humor and sophistication that Pierce Brosnan brought to the franchise. I miss the gadgets and the story line. bond is supposed to be suave and sophisticated. Now he is a ruthless agent. Casino Royale at least had that. this movie lacked almost every detail of a bond film. But besides missing all the bond details, it was still a great movie. More of an action movie than a bond movie. I still loved it and i think Daniel craig plays a great bond. he just need more direction from the writers.

This was a very disappointing Bond outing. The problems all lie with the script and the direction. Craig is a very credible Bond. And yes, he needs to be "tough," we also need to see his sophisticated side, otherwise he becomes just a thuggish killing machine (as some of the reviews have suggested). I assume some of that is Craig's acting choice, but he can't act it if it's not in the script. This script was high on concept and low on narrative. As a result, the piece didn't seem cohesive and the plot seemed like a slender excuse to connect the film's action sequences. And the direction/editing of those action sequences drained them of their impact. The "attention-deficit disorder" style of editing left us with no idea of what was happening or who it was happening to. We still need wide shots to help establish the scope and breadth of what's happening.

I thought the film was a perfect continuation of the previous film (except the opening credits). And as far as the people who are on here complaining how it's not the "real" James Bond, I cordially invite you to continue yelling at kids to get off your lawn.
And for those of you who couldn't understand the plot, I have a farm animal sound machine that might be more to your liking SPOILER: the cow goes moo.

I understand the desire of new directors to make their mark on characters and I look forward to it.

There is kabuki dance quality to how Bond flicks are made: Brassy music, exciting venues, handsome stolid men, exotic unnattainable women, brief moments of calm, gizmos, organizations bent on some form of world domination and intrigueing trysts with Bond girls, humor and perhaps too much campiness (i.e. Jaws).

Quantum was not a bond flick. Where is my bond flick? My wife is just as upset.

I didn't know that Robert Ludlum wrote for Ian Fleming.

not 'bad' per se – but definitely a big disappointment compared to Casino Royale, which had raised expectations.
This one was hurries, confusing, lacking any quite and emotional moments, devoid of any humor, and ultimately urgency.
I do hope the next one will, again, be more balanced, now that this one is out of the way. It felt like an epilogue to the last one, not it's own movie.

I think they should have named it:

Quantum of Bollocks.

Loved it. A lot of action (some argue too much), but it kept movie exciting and it was never too drawn out.

I agree that the Craig Bond has some similarities to the Fleming Bond. But anyone who has read the novels (and read about Fleming) knows that Bond was always a loyal subject of Her Majesty's empire. Once M demands he abandon the mission and head back to London, Fleming's Bond would comply and would certainly not beat the crap out of his own Secret Service comrades. He was a Commander in Her Majesty's Navy and knows and respects the chain of command. This is truly more of a Bourne Bond.

It was awesome. Not overly done. Daniel Craig was outstanding as usual. Good story line, and super action!

I have to say that was expecting to be dissapointed after the terrible reviews it received, but was I wrong! I liked this one even better than Casino Royale. There was plenty of mystery and action and I think Daniel Craig takes over as good where Sean Connery left off.
My whole family thoroughly enjoyed it!

the action almost felt cartoonish.l I couldn't figure out how any of it related to... well, the non-existant story or plot. I won't waste my time or money again on the next Bond movie...

I was hugely disappointed in this one, even though I'm a fan of the Daniel Craig's Bond, Casino Royale, and the Bourne movies. Quantum of Solace was just awful. It left out all the wit, charm, story line, and personalization that made Casino Royale such a winner. I understand that it's supposed to be Bond dealing with Vesper's death, but two hours of nothing but cold-blooded killing without an arc? Bo-ring. Yes, he's grieving with a license to kill. Got it. Don't need to see thirty badly cut action sequences to get that hammered into my skull. Even if they didn't want the character to evolve at all (mission accomplished!), they could have at least made it more entertaining.

This film had almost everything. The only thing it was missing was a plot.

Actions scenes were so poorly filmed, my wife and I got up and walked out. Horrible camera work and film editing. Camera was unstable, swinging and kept moving to blur the action. People fell down stairs without being hit. Items came crashing to the floor without being hit. Craig didn't have a chance to be a great new Bond, because his fight scenes and even his love scenes were so poorly directed. Even the opening credits did not measure up. Two thumbs down.

Thanks for all the spoiler-laden reviews. I should have known better not to read all of your stupid opinions.

it's not a roger moore movie. go rent if you want that.

A Bond movie should be equal parts action, sex, and wit.

This movie was all action. When I go into a Bond film, I expect something MORE. This film was good, but felt like just another action flick.

Hope this is not a sign of things to come for the franchise.

Craig is definitely the best Bond since Connery but Connery is still my favorite. I loved the new film. I think people are missing the point in that this new movie takes off days after Casino Royale in "revenge" mode. With that in mind, I didn't expect it to follow the same formula as other Bond flicks. Of course there are more action scenes and less humor.... it's about revenge and to Bond, it's now personal I do agree with one poster in that Craig is more like the books by Fleming and that's why I enjoyed the last two films very much. My only negative is the opening theme song. Now that was lame. It goes down as the worst theme since "All Time High" by Rita Coolidge in my opinion. I did like the opening visuals with the song however. As for the gadgets, I'm glad this film focused more on Bonds abilities rather than the special weapons. Not every Bond film needs gadgets. Also, Olga Kurylenko is totally gorgeous so I wouldn't say there wasn't a memorable Bond gal.

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie again and also the next Bond film with Craig. Will Mr. White return? Is he the new version of Ernst Stavro Blofeld? ooooh. I can hardly wait.

Glen T.

I like the series' gritty new direction, and I like QoS more than Casino Royale - precisely because there is more action (and no more boring card games). That said, I think the hyperactive editing of the action sequences (here and in other movies such as the Bourne series) is a moviemaking cheat that allows filmmakers to mask the fact that they don't have any fresh ideas when it comes to choreographing action sequences. As far as the lack of substance goes, I'm sure they could've provided more detail about the villian's motivations, but it would've just added to the running time. Bottomline: I think it's great that they'e bringing Bond down to earth and beating the crap out of him in the process. It's refreshing, and that's enough for me (it's only a movie!)

Daniel Craig is the best Bond. I felt that QOS was not nearly as good as CR, and I lay the blame for that at the feet of the director, Mark Foster. I do not feel that the story line was as developed as it should have been, with some story lines, perhaps intentionally, left too wide open (for instance, Mr. White, we see him at the opera, but other than that, nothing...he is still at-large, along with a few other names mentioned after Bond's supremely awesome "gotcha"). Will the next film be yet another contiuation? It certainly seems plausible.

I disagree with most of the comments in this thread because I do believe it was a good movie albeit with poor direction. As for the "cool gadgets" some people are looking for, I felt that the "computer desk" and the "wall" were a bit too much. I like the gadget-less bond. I feel that too many of the "new-era" Bond predecessors relied too heavily on gadgets, and I am thoroughly enjoying the Daniel Craig era. IMHO, he is the best Bond ever, arugably, of course.

All in all, a very worthwhile film of your $10, and a good movie to boot.

Cheers...

Craig is a new Bond – Not the best (Connery will always be that) but so much better than Moore.

The movie was very good (I also like the Bourne movies). Not the Bond films I have been watching since I was 9 but, a very good movie.

As it is the sequel to C.R. it is a good follow up.

I enjoy the relationship and fondness Bond expresses for M. Shows a humanity that so many other Bond movies omitted.

For the future however, please give me some gadgets and more wit, those are what bring the smile to my face after the credits finish running. Also, we need a much better sond.

The best thing about this Bond film was the Star Trek trailer at the beginning.

This movie was guilty of the one thing Bond should NEVER be guilty of. It was ordinary.

Bring back the signature moments that make Bond "Bond" and make it special again. Craig is great, give him something to work with people!!

I was dissapointed in this recent installment. The story line was poorly constructed and delivered – Wait a minute was that Vespa boyfriend – wait a minute what was his role in all this – wait a minute – wait a minute the villan shot in the desert – wait a minute didn't Bond take pictures of these guys – wait a minute the movie is over? Oh boy.

I watched "Casino Royale" last week after hearing that "Quantum of Solace" begins where its predecessor leaves off. I love "Casino Royale" and expected similar quality out of "Quantum of Solace", especially considering Paul Haggis co-wrote both. Maybe it was the additional writers, or the director with no action experience, but Quantum couldn't be more different (and lacking) in substance, tone and overall style. Daniel Craig has maybe 2 pages of dialogue, thus, there is no emotional substance, plot attachment or engagement. Quantum is basically one drawn out, irrelevant action sequence that takes place in strange locations and without any redeeming narrative structure. Certainly a disappointment. I'd advice renting it...don't waste $10.

GoldenEye is still the best bond film for me, if only because it revived the series and GoldFinger is not my generation. The opening credits/song for this one were unmemorable.. none of the thrilling highs/lows of Tina Turner.

Roger Moore is quite right.. this Bond is an unsubtle, cold-blooded killer of the Bourne variety, This lacked the humor of GoldenEye (the statue-toting tank!), the cleverness of GoldFinger (electrocuted hat!), and a Femme Fatale (again, GoldenEye).

That said, i like the hard-edged realism (Roger Moore never seemed Dangerous).. but the finale seemed to toss the realism out the window. Bolivian building codes seem to favor ridiculously combustible buildings.

I think Craig made a great Bond in "Casino Royale", but the plot and the filming left much to be desired in "Quantum." It did remind me a lot of the Bourne movies, which I didn't care for cinematically. I'm a newbie to the Bond genre, but even as just a movie, this was NOT at the top of the list. (I've seen worse... anyone ever seen Jumper? DON'T.)

Definitely a thumbs up.
Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery. All the others in between have been hokey/jokey, and not anything like the Fleming character.
Moore was acceptable if a bit too smirky and Pierce Brosnan the pinnacle of laughable, wimpy Bonds. These aren't supposed to be comedies.
The opening sequence was almost as good as the Casino Royale opening, though I agree with critics that bemoan the frenetic pacing of some of the fights. That plus hiding Bond in a car for the opening sequence seemed wrong.
A very believable Bond girl for a change with her own compelling motives was a good change from the forgetable bimbos of the past as well. And I truly appreciated the lack of an embarrassingly dumb, cringe worthy name for the female characters.

Casino Royale was far better. Quantum needed a more coherent story line, and it was far too complicated. It was lacking enough emotional moments and some of the action scenes left me wondering how Bond managed to do what he appeared to be doing–too far-fetched. The ending was a letdown. I saw Casino Royale several times but would not see Quantum again. It's a shame, because Daniel Craig's Bond grew on me...he deserves a better movie.

Not as good as Casino Royale but still enjoyable. I agree with post above about "Bournesque" camera work. A little to much action and not enough substance. I would bet the producers make some radical script changes before the next one. Daniel Craig though still best Bond ever. Makes Brosnan and especially Moore look comical now. In retrospect you wonder how these guys were ever picked in the first place. Times change and so must Bond. I give the movie a B.

I am a big fan of the Bond Movies – BUT Daniel Craig looks like a villian – NOT James Bond. He was a bad choice and I will not watch any Bond film he is in!

Loved it! I was in Italy this fall and enjoyed seeing Lake Garda and Siena all over again. I took a group to see the movie to celebrate my 60th birthday. Lots of action to keep us old folks awake! Watching a James Bond movie is like watching the Travel Channel. Beautiful Bond girls, too. And great music in this film.

This was one of the worst Bond films ever. A convoluted story line that no one understood (can someone please explain it?) and the worst action sequences ever to be put on film. The action scenes were so bad that you could not tell who was fighting who. The purpose of any action or thrilling scene is to create an obstacle for the main hero to overcome. In this film all the action sequences mainly consisted of a series of maybe 80 incoherent different shots cut into a 90 second space of time where the viewer is left wondering just what the hell is going on. This is bad filmmaking! What is truly sad though is the fact that they had a great cast, great locations, fine cinematography and a great production team. And they managed to ruin it all.
I like Craig's Bond but I hope they put him in better Bond films to come.

Well, since the Casino Royal was HORRIBLE an extension of that is not a good thing. I am disgusted with where they are taking this very popular franchise.

Anyone want to buy my copy of Casino Royale cheap?

Folks, I must say that I'm tired of hearing all this negative crap about the new bond movie...I went and saw it Saturday night and loved it...People must remeber that this Bond just became a double 0 a week earlier and is still a charging bull who just happened to lose a love and wants to kick ass before he takes names...Relax watch how this bond will morph into a combo of old and new

It was a big dissapointment – but then again as with most Bond movies, the thrill for most people are the stunts and explosions which this movie has plenty of. I would wait to rent it; its definately not worth the hype or the $10.00/ticket.

I thought this was an excellent and necessary chapter in the new Bond franchise.

Casino Royale set the framework for the new Bond, showing his origins as a 00 agent, while Quantum of Solace sets the framework for the man himself. Making this film a direct sequel to its predecessor was necessary in this sense, as only his personal trauma carried over from the last film could be used to explain the kind of person he becomes.

The previous bond films have shown him as a suave and capable agent, but where he derives his sense of purpose, loyalty, trust, cold-heartedness, compassion, and inner torment (not to mention how disposable most women are to him) were never fully realized, except for slight glimpses in various films. These were aspects of Bond that were integral to his character in the novels.

As for the complaints that Quantum of Solace was short on plot, I disagree. From a literary standpoint, this movie was rather heavy on plot, when you think that the movie wasn't about Bond vs [whatever villain/criminal organization], but Bond vs Bond. He was both the protagonist and antagonist in this story, with QUANTUM, Mr. Greene, and all other characters plots as merely a framing device for his personal journey.

I agree that the introduction and loss of explanation of QUANTUM was rather sparse and confusing, but it's clear that as far as QUANTUM is concerned, this movie was merely a setup for the continuation of the new Bond franchise, as an ever present threat; the new S.P.E.C.T.R.E. if you will. With an organization that "has people everywhere," you would not expect that their motivations be explained in one, or even several movies.

As for the action/effects? My only complaint is that Bond's personal story sometimes came off a little thin due to the drawn out nature of some of those sequences, but they were all very well done, and who doesn't go to a bond film to see something exciting?

If it weren't for last year's writers' strike, and the rushed screenplay of the film as a result, I'm sure the little problems that plagued the screenplay overall could have been handled better, but the theme came out all the same.

I am very impressed with this film, and am anxiously looking forward to where the franchise goes from here.

This was a good, but different Bond film. Unlike previous films, this was a direct continuation of Casino Royale. As such, for me, it was more than believeable that Bond would be mad at the world and out for revenge. I think I would have been disappointed with a lighter, devil-may-care Bond, given the context of the film. Of course the next Bond film would do well to return to Bondian form, with a bit more "fun" thrown in.

Not enough 'Bond" in this one. James Bond has intelligence, style, wit, elegance, and hard nosed action, but the action is only to "close the deal" and use his license to kill, not to occupy the whole movie. We go to Bond movies for the story, the character, the humor, and the gadgets. And we can't wait to see how they all are used a bit at a time to develop the story, then all come together as he "gets his man" in the climax. In this one it's action only, with little of the finer points. And, unless the next Bond movie contains a scene where they ask him his name, and he replies "Bond, James Bond". I will not see it, period. B- in my book.

Loved it! I was in Italy this fall and enjoyed seeing Lake Garda and Siena all over again. I took a group to see the movie to celebrate my 60th birthday. Lots of action to keep us old folks awake! Watching a James Bond movie is like watching the Travel Channel. Beautiful Bond girls, too. And great music in this film.

This was a superb film. The idea that Bond should be glib and a comic is at odds with the original novels. Much like a painting emotions and plot can be advanced with less dialogue. the idea that Brosnan was more Bond like is laughable–read the books!

Fight scenes were terrible. I had no idea what was going on. At one point, I'm pretty sure I saw an axe, but had no idea where it came from.

Other than the villian being a bad guy, I didn't really understand what made him terrible enough to be a Bond villian. Last night, watching Thunderball, I saw a villian throw a guy into a pool of sharks and try to set off nuclear explosions. Now there is a real villian. I had no idea what made this guy so terrible and powerful that only Bond could take care of him.

what was the deal with the super secretive group of bad guys. They are dangerous enough that they have people everywhere, but no one knows what they do...but whatever it is, it must be bad, b/c the movie tells us so.

No gadgets, but this is still supposed to be early Bond so I can let that slide.

No hot bond girl, no capture and torture, no appeal.

I think Daniel Craig is a great Bond, but I think this movie was terrible.

Roger Moore?? Not manly enough, though I would say Live and Let Die was his best.

By far the best Bond movie yet. The connection between Bond and M really works. Keep up the good work.

Very good movie, and a great follow up to Casino Royale. Its amazing to hear alot of people complain about the action, but truly wach it again and view the emotional side of Bond, especially the scenes with Mathis.

How the hell people can compare this film to Bourne...I will never understand.

Such a great film and I am looking forward to Bond 23!

I disagree with most of these comments as well. This Bond was great... I think alot of you who doubt craig or dislike this movie have not watched and read the Bond series. The comment about Brosnan being the best Bond is just an awful comment. Craig does well, there is a connected story line which never happened in the old Bonds... and if you read the original novels this is the wya Bond is supposed to be in the beginning. Dark, misterious, somewhat misguided at first.

QoS was great, but I felt the action sequences were produced lazy–quick edits so you couldn't tell what was happening, like a slick fast-talking salesman. If I have to ask "what just happened?" then the filmmaker cheated. Casino Royale didn't lack action, but it was coreographed and filmed with much more discipline and purpose, as was therefor so much more impressive and effective.

If anyone has read Ian Flemming's novels, they would know that Bond is more dark and less witty. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are Bond as he was meant to be. I disagree with characterization of these movies as too Bourne-like. They are more realistic than the ridiculous, over-the-top, gimmicky, wink-wink-nudge-nudge, movies that were pre-Daniel Craig. I can't wait to see the next installment.

In comparison to "Casino Royale", I felt "Quantum of Solace" was not quite as good. However, "Casino Royale" was so good, that merely coming close is still a good thing.

The action and acting were top notch, and Craig's Bond is probably the best of them all...yes, even better than Connery.

Having said all this, I felt this movie was not so much a movie onto itself, but more of a closer for "Casino Royale" and the set-up for the next installment. Most of the loose ends from "Casino Royale" were tied up, but a lot of questions were left unanswered, particularly what QoS is all about and who, exactly, is Mr. White.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems QoS is being set up as the modern equivalent of SPECTRE and SMERSH, while Mr. White is the new Blofeld. I was not so much disappointed by a lack of explanation of QoS and White in this movie as I am excited about learning more in the next film.

Overall, this was a solid outing for Bond and among the best films in the franchise's history. Not THE best, but very good. I plan on seeing "Quantum of Solace" a second time to make sure I have all the details in my head ready to go for November 2010 when Bond 23 will surely hit theaters.

I have all 21 James Bond DVD's and will not buy this 1. This was not a Bond movie..worse than the last one. Too serious and not enough fun and gadgets....bring back Pierce

One of the worst movies I have ever seen – and I see a lot of movies!!!

If you go back to the source material, the new movies have captured the essence of Bond. Daniel Craig does an amazing job of making this character mortal again, not just a super suave, pretty playboy with endless gadgets. This Bond gets dirty and gets hurt. More, please.

Now, the directing and editing are another matter. I did not pay for motion sickness. Not cool.

Sorry, but the the new Bond sucked eggs. A couple of good action sequences didn't make up for the lack of character, choppy editing, and utterly opaque plot. Sure, my expectations were high after Casino Royale, but the 4th or 5th time I found myself confusedly scratching my head, I had to admit- sometimes they serve turkey BEFORE Thanksgiving.

At least the opening "Music Video" was back to having some women on it, unlike Casino Royale. I guess Maurice Binder passed away... and it took them a while to get back on track, although both CR and QofS opening credits stunk artistically.

You definitely need to watch Casino Royale again before going to this one, otherwise you are lost with the plot.

Thank you Nick S. I couldn't have said it better.(Tho I've said exactly the same thing). Sorry to all the people that didn't see it that way. Their loss.

I was very disappointed.

I LOVED Casino Royale. The story line was excellent and the characters were developed. This movie was just a string of action scenes strung together by an afterthought of a plot. The bond girl's character wasn't developed and there was no chemistry with bond. Also – she didn't look the LEAST bit Bolivian. Give me a break.

Casino Royale was excellent. This was just a run of the mill action movie.

I think that a moviegoer needs to revisit Casino Royale before they see QOS. There are returning characters in QOS from Casino Royale that need to be remembered so parts of the movie would make more sense.

Wee spoilers follow:

I disliked QoS and walked out with about twenty minutes to go – just after the scene with the DC-3 where the chute opens just before Bond and the girl impact the ground. Yes, and some of the fight scenes were a direct rip (homage?) to "Bourne Ultimatum" and I can accept that. What I cannot accept is the obvious "homage" to "Goldfinger" with an oil-dipped babe versus gold-painted. However, (besides the horrendous song – they should've recruited rockin' Scots 'Mogwai' instead of Jack White) the biggest sin of QoS appears to be the poorly written script, making "M" appear to be as clueless as...erm.....Sarah Palin? Next time they should get Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men) to direct. Bottom line, I loved "Casino Royale" and had high expectations. Instead, all I got was a "Royale with Cheese."

Where was Q ?

Unique locations, beautiful women, nonstop action...Will it win the Oscar? Nope. Did it amuse me for a couple hours? Sure did. Stop complaining and take the movie for what it is.

I loved the new Bond Film!!
Best Bond I have seen! Daniel Craig is an excellent James Bond which follows Ian Flemings original and early Bond vision . One can also say that this is a Bond for a new generation and a changed world. The old Bond antics, although they have their place, would at this time play out like an outdated, campy, comedic affair. I feel that the Bond, which the "true" Bond fans want to see so badly would almost certainly be the demise of the franchise in modern times. The old suave lines no longer play out to the old suave tricks.
That being said, the plot line was very well thought out and I enjoyed the chemistry between Bond and the villians as well as the bond girls.

I love Daniel Craig as Bond and I seriously missed seeing him in a more intimate love scene. Could he have worn less clothes somewhere?

I also thought the action was very "Bourne-like" at times and am not sure I'm into that from a Bond movie. He's supposed to be sophisticated not cold-blooded.

It's nice to see a "man's man", back in the roll of 007. Never did like those tea sipping momma's boys and pretty boys they replaced Connery with.

The Bond film was excellent, but I agree that there was not a lot of "story." It was all action, all the time. Sometimes the action scenes were too fast to keep up worth. Would see it again just to lay eyes on Daniel Craig!

I like the physicality of the new Bond, he seems to do his own stunts? What I miss is the "cutting remarks made by the old Bond characters, some were cheesy by some added to the fasade of Bond. This new movie did not even include his famous, my name is Bond, James Bond.........kind of cannot have a Bond movie without it. I likewise miss the old character of "Q" the guy who invents all the new toys for Bond to use and destroy, they also had some good dialoge between them. My last comment has to do with the old Bond being "A lady killer". This Bond seems to be indifferent to the "bedroom scenes from the other Bonds". Again, the allore of the old Bond character was his ability "to bed most any woman at a moments notice". Hey Bond movies are suppose to be an escape from our troubles and to project "the fantacy of the Bond character", I didn't think I would like the new Bond, but if he is to continue I think it would do well for him to bring along some of the old traits that we all loved about the other Bond characters, if not, the Bond saga seems to be coming to a close and that would be unfortunate!

Steve Schmidt

No offense to Mr. Craig, but I have tried to accept the fact, that he is the actor that is portraying James Bond. I am lukewarm to him. I don't see any charisma or charm or even style! The producers and directors elected to give Bond this so called " makeover". They have allowed James Bond, to succumb to, the changing demands of the public. The Jason Bourne movies evolved into what, Bond should have been. When I went to see a Bond movie, I was looking for Bond.... James Bond, I was looking for style and class. You felt a certain feeling of inclusion, when you saw Sean Connery portraying Bond. The only reason that ,these movies are grossing so much money–they are Bond movies!!!! The younger generation doesn't appreciate quality!!

What a mess! The awful Jack White/Alicia Keys song set the tone for many of the discordant action scenes, many of which have been mentioned above. I'll add one more: The endless, burning down building scene could have been done better and made at least somewhat plausible that anyone can survive being in the middle of an inferno. I would give this movie a D+. I would give Casino Royale an A. Hopefully, the next one will make up for this mess.

The 007 movies are getting better!! Craig is great " bad" bond, the only thing I missed in Quantum were the special agent devices, no jet pack or laser watch.

The Bond franchise jumped the shark when TImothy Dalton and then Pierce Brosnan took the lead. [Although Dalton redeemed himself beautifully in "Hot Fuzz."] Meanwhile, action techniques became grittier and more "real", thanks to the Bourne movies. So, the Daniel Craig incarnations are understandable attempts to right the ship. The problem is that two key elements from the Bond world are missing: gadgets and a sense of humor. Without these two essential ingredients, there's just no Bond. Instead, it's "The Bond Identity."

Since the first Batman movie, action blockbusters have traded deep character development and fluid storytelling for speed and explosions. The Bourne series are the first action films in a generation to tell a credible story and offer a credible hero. While the Bond films aren't supposed to do 'credible,' they are supposed to be fun and funny. Until the characters, action and technology are made fun again, the new Bond flicks will pale in comparison to the heydays of Connery and Moore.

Casino Royale was forgivable because it did pack a lot of pulse-raising action. But, it's not enough to carry the franchise forward. Quantum of Solace offers nothing new to the legacy, save for a brooding, squinting Bond who, while able to run, shoot, drive and fight, lacks the most important weapon in 007's arsenal: the ability to smile.

I think folks are forgetting that this movie starts immediately after Casino Royale and that his heart was crushed by Vespa. But we find out at the end that Vespa was not the traitor and in fact trying to protect Bond and that she did love him. The other guy was in fact using Vespa for Quantum, like he was using the Canadian Spy (Canada has spys???). Everything Bond does in this movie is not for Queen and Country but to hurt the people who hurt him.

The ending credits start with the begining that Bond movies are famous for (watch Bond walk out and then turn and shoot). That is what this movie is. It is the bridge between rough and tumble Bond to hopefully a sleeker one. I beleive this number two of a trilogy and Quantum will be around for a while as the nemesis of the OO's.

Not as good as CR, but good in its own right.

As far as Bond movies go, the plot had as much to it as License to Kill (which I regard as possibly the worst bond film ever). A movie about revenge and Latin American dictators. The plot to divert the water supply of a country as small as Bolivia's as part of a larger eco-terrorism conspiracy is still iffy at best for a Bond storyline. Plus, he kills everyone in the beginning before we get a chance to know who he's killed and why it matters to the story line.

I understand that the James Bond portrayed by Daniel Craig is the eveloving, rough-edged agent who will become more sophisticated the more we see him. So that's why I am patient with this particular choice. Still, this movie needed to be much longer and more substantive to develop characters and carry the Quantum struggle forward.

I understand some people do not like this Bond (Craig’s Bond) but they should know that this Bond is Ian Fleming’s Bond. If you have ever read any of the Fleming novel’s on Bond you suddenly recognize the character displayed in the last two films by Daniel Craig.

Most people do not know that Flemming was quite upset about the choice of Sean Connery as James Bond. Connery was a Scottish male model and “to pretty” to be Bond according to Fleming. Fleming wanted Jack Palance to play Bond because he had the worn face and grit that Flemings Bond character had.

In the novels Bond is an assassin just as much as he is a spy. He kills people, he drinks heavily and he struggles between being very cold and trying to be human. Many of the previous Bond films almost only used the title and some scenes from the books. They actually wrote the scenes into a different plot and made Bond into a comical character. That is why people who only know Bond from the movies do not recognize this Bond, but people who have read the novels love this Bond.

Basically I love all Bond films except the ones with Pearce Brosnan, them I only partially like. I always hoped that somebody would someday make a movie using Ian Flemings Bond and know that is the case

Bottom line is that Daniel Craig’s Bond is the first true James Bond and this Bond film was great. I can’t wait for the next!

I thoroughly enjoyed the action and I understood the storyline and why Bond was so focused on his own mission. I loved the movie and Daniel Craig as James Bond is one of the top two, however, the next Bond movie needs to sway in the other direction of more gadgets, clever innuendos by Bond and increase the sexiness level. Bond movies should aim for the adult demographic, not 12 year olds.

Haven't seen the film yet, but I just wanted to point out that many of the criticisms I'm reading here seem to be taken verbatim from early media reviews. I'd be interested to know how many of these reviews were untainted by early reports.

Frankly I was disappointed in both the film, and the "new" James Bond. The story line of the film was at best "weak", relatively vague, and an excersise in noise and "flash". At best a "C".
While Mr. Craig may be a good actor his "part" lacked any strength and he was constantly looking like the pouting school child. I really think I would give him another try, but definately in a well written story where "James Bond" could be seen, not just the special effects and camera work. Technology is adding a low level headache, rather than the warmer more intimate side of a good James Bond story.
And was that Sean Connery in the chair reading the paper in the hotel lobby?

These new ones have nothing to do with Bond. Sad

Wost bond ever. there was no " My name is Bond, James Bond" no Identity. Casino Royale was the best.

No humor, No gadgets, No Q = dull Bond.

I'm fairly shocked at some of the negative comments. I did happen to have some knowledge of this film and its purpose before seeing it.

So bottom line, I thought QoS was an excellent film. Saw it 3 times already, the fastest experience I had in a theater.

This movie, in my opinion, was simply the ending of Casino Royale! It was the wrap up. Also, someone stated that the beginning took place minutes after the sad part of CR. Well, we do not know how much time had taken place between 007's phone conversation with M and when 007 caught up with White. Maybe a week? Maybe a month?

I think its very obvious what happened at the end, someone stated, you could assume it both ways. Incorrect if you listened to the ending dialog, Bond clearly answered M's question about the last guy he pointed his pistol at.

I'm speaking in code so to speak, so as to not give any spoilers, unlike one guy above who commented about Mathis.. good one!

QoS was a very exciting film and one thing you cant forget, CR and QoS are NOT about James Bond that we have known in the past. Both of these story's about the man, who becomes and how he will become to be the Bond we know.

I think the next Bond movie, will take place about 2 years later in the life of 007, and he will be much more Bond"ish" at that time, with more obvious 007 music and so on.

Scott

Connery is still No. 1 and probably always will be: you believed he could kill and seduce...humor was there but in a deadly kind of way.

Bosnan No. 2 - I think he had the balance right between humor and seduction - not quite as believable as Conner in the murderous sense.

I think Craig is in as No. 3 now - although the films he's been in don't have the techno-glamor pop of the classics.

Moore was too jokey but at least he could act: No. 4

Lazenby – completely wooden & Dalton too weepy tie at No. 5/6

David Niven – love him - but was he really Bond? Apparently Ian Fleming thought so and he could have been great: it was the film that didn't do Bond justice.

And finally the forgettable TV performance of Barry Nelson...not even worth ranking.

I liked the throwback to Goldfinger (the girl killed and painted in gold) this time she was killed and painted in oil... Overall I thought the movie was good but Casino was better...

I saw the movie last night and have to agree with anthony jovino. Way too much action to the point that made it difficult to follow it. I was hesitant to accept Daniel Craig as the new "Bond" but after seeing Casino Royale, I was convinced they had made the right choice. The new film does not give him as much story to show what he can do. How about more story line and less gratuitous violence next time? Too many characters on the screen and too little time to understand all of the organizations and their relevance. I give it a thumbs down!

Great action sequences but unrealistic at times. Once again Bond lacked villain character development and an opaque plot, to say the least. To have us believe extorting "Water" of all things you could possibly think of you come up with this! Are we really out of new ideas! Grade C

The new Bond is more ruthless and TO Violent. This movie ends with leaving you depressed and feeling empty. The old Bonds were more comical and enjoyable. I will not go watch this Bond again!.

I am sorry but Pierce was the best bond ever. Craig just does not have the polish or the charisma to pull the roll off. It would have been a much better movie with someone else playing the role......

Although it is a fair assessment to say there was a lot of action and camera shaking, there was also character development of well thought out plot. One can see the transformation from a savage killer who seeks only revenge to an evolving humanist. Granted Bond is constantly killing savagely, he breaks from this spree as he spares a life of a simple usher at a concert. He held him in his arms and just threw him on top of a car instead of shooting him. This shows restraint and a more moderate character who does not kill for the kill.

It was OK, not great – Action was good, but the plot was terrible – no real substance. I'd give it a 4 out of 10.

Oh yeah, Jack White wrote a hell of a theme song if only it didn't have the cheesy "The Man with the Golden Gun" horn licks in it...

When I saw the poster I knew we were in trouble. Isn't that the ugliest ad ever? And the Bond girl... eeech. The reviews clinched it for me – I didn't go to see it. Better luck next time.

Sorry, but this movie sucked. The only thing cool about it was the cars.

Bring on the next Bourne movie!!!

I loved Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. Roger Moore took some time but can never replace the original. Daniel Craig just doesn't do it for me at all. I think Clive Owen would've been a better pick.

I thought Quantum was really good, though it could have used more dialogue and character insight. I like that the missions are personal and the villians more realistic; the supervillians of yesteryear are best left to Austin Powers to parody. Daniel Craig is a great Bond and is certainly a man our times – he moves like a lion thru the sierra and you can't take your eyes off of him.

Are you kidding me? I can't afford a LUXURY like going to the movies. I'm cutting back to lunches @ less than $1.00 a day and generic everything. A MOVIE??? HA!

I am 53 years old and have been a Bond fan all my life. I own all the movies and must say that I will not waste my time or money watching this bit of trash again. I do not blame the actors. This movie has no plot that I can speak of. If I were not such an avid fan and had read the plot reviews before the movie aired, I would have had no idea what was going on. Please, give us less useless action scenes and more plot development. If there are many more like this one, it could kill the francise.

Put me down for a B+; I like the darker, more mature direction they've taken Bond in, and I think Craig is as good a Bond as we've ever had. For me, Bond has NEVER been about gadgets, supermodels with absurd names, and supervillains who want to blow up the world. Regarding the new movie, I do wish the pace had been slower, and that some of the action scenes had been cut in favor of some quiet time. And enough with the shaky-cam already! In every other aspect, I hope this one is a sign of things to come.

where was the humor?
where were the signature one-liners?
where were the gadgets?
The new Bond is a thug and vigilante.

Someone please tell whomever edited this thing that there are decaffeinated brands out there that are just as tasty as the real thing.

I also hope theaters have a doctor standing by in case any epileptics in the audience melt down from the flickering and flashing.

Wow.

I saw the Solace this weekend before seeing the first film. I was amazed by the departure from the look and feel of the previous Bond movies. I thought I would be disappointed by the more 'realistic' version of Bond, but was won over by the end of the movie. However, the plot was not as diabolical as I would have liked. Was the movie really about taking control of a countries water supply to raise rates? Not the super-evil plot I'm used to seeing in these movies. That was the only disappointing part of the movie for me.

Immediately after seeing Solace, I went home and watched Casino Royale. I have to say that the first film was so much better than the second, and it was that film that makes me want to see a third Daniel Craig Bond film.

Crap

I've loved the amazing sweeping cinematography of the last 2 Bonds, some of those scenes were gasp worthy.

The viewer needs to be reminded that this was a continuation from Casino Royale, and CR being the FIRST Ian Fleming Bond book, it clearly takes on a different tone that the preceeding novels/movies.

Daniel Craig is amazing, and truly emulates the class, flair and mystery Bond entails. I love his dry wit and dashing good looks.

The movie has certainly taken a more new age tone, but equally fast paced and energetic as previous Bonds.

I watched this last night and I'm still trying to decide how I feel about it. It's definately not your typical James Bond movie. Too much killing...not enough loving...but then again, Bond just lost the love of his life..so I guess he's still in recovery mode. The Bond girls were dreadful! They even had a disfigured Bond girl. Coming from Berry, Murino and Eva Green to this crew, was a major let down for me. It was good, but I'm still undecided as to how good it was.

No story line even for a Bond movie and what little fragments there were of a story was amateurish. Some of the action scenes were mind blowing, others were just noise.

A very forgettable movie
.

I was disappointed. Not nearly as good as the last one. There was not enough storyline and to many questions left unamswered.

Movie without famous bond punchline. 'My name is Bond, James Bond' and cool gadgets.
but, Bond is Bond and always will be.

In short, the action was filmed too tightly; cut, cut, cut, and a headache. The story was not the focus, so that leaves little to like. The first film was very good and Craig is an excellent Bond; one of the best.

Daniel Craig does a excellent job of Bond. The writers and directors need to do their job! This latest installment lacks the character development of the first. We are suppose to be seeing how our favorite superspy became suave, debonair, and cool. This installment had too much glitter (action & violence) and not enough substance (character & story development; although the relationship between Bond and "M" was a redeeming character development in the movie). Don't turn back teh clock, keep going forward. I do not want the same predictable car scenes, boat scenes, & airplane scenes (which this movie gave in over-abundance). I want the curve balls that make me pause and feel for a character (like when Bond was holding his friend consoling him before he dies or giving advise on how to kill). I saw the movie and will continue to support the franchise but give me something to cheer for. This movie gets an okay from me ( C+, or *** out of *****) .

Could have used more of that "tongue-in-cheek" type of humor we've all come to know and love. And, what about Q? Where's he been? Could have used more cool gadgets too. That's another Bond trademark that was missing from this film (and the last). However, Daniel Craig is certainly the most smokin' hot Bond ever. They needed more sex scenes in this one too!! I'd still recommend it though if you're a Bond fan. I thought Mr. Craig's acting was very good, he does a great job portraying a man trying to mask his pain.

It was awesome, this bond is handsome, manly, hot and he took my breath away. A real man! Go Mr. Craig, you are the sexiest Bond ever!

Craig is a good actor and he can't help the scripts and storylines aren't that good. I'm a huge Bourne fan and this movie basically ripped off the Bourne franchise. Regardless of the books (never read) the movie's have always had some wit about them and both with Craig don't. Also, I'm not sold on Craig, I think Andy Whitfield would make a better Bond, watch the movie Gabriel if you don't know who he is. They can keep action in the new bond movie's, but don't forget what got you there. IMHO, the bonds ranks are, Connery, Brosnan, Moore, Craig, Dalton.

The movie was entertaining. My only complaint was how fast the action scenes moved. The camera moves from one scene to the next so fast, your eyes barely have time to focus before the scene changes again. It's a challenge to even make out what is happening in the scene.

Missed the wit and charm and sophistication of Bond, along with the romance. Too many chase scenes and fight scenes. Bond is the ultimate intelligent spy, not the hit man thug of this movie. Regardless, Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery. Can't say the same about the Bond girl. Could not understand her or connect with her. She had no appeal whatsoever.

Sean Connery was the best Bond, period. I'll conceed that this is largely due to the way the Bond movies were produced in the 60's during his "reign". Better supporting actors, music scores, scripts and none of this phony, cartoon-ish, computer-imaged action crap that dominate adventure movies these days.

Didn't see it. Don't plan to. I distrust any movie where the trailer consists of things blowing up.

Really tedious action sequences done in that post-Bruckheimer vein that is seriously in danger of becoming it's own best/worst parody. Too much.
Nine to eleven cuts in the space of two seconds, and then several minutes of that. Had to watch Lawrence of Arabia afterwards just to get some equilibrium back. You know, a movie with real cinematic composition? It's time for that shake/quick style to be shown the door, even if we have to endure twenty cuts of the edge of the doorway in the far left corner before passing through it. Enough, already; this is freak-action-exhibitionism, not storytelling.

The movie was excellently produced, shot, etc. and the acting was fine. My beef with the film, though, was the casting of the "main villain". The other 'Q' bad guys seemed a better fit for a bond bad guy, than this one. Perhaps he was chosen to show that he was simply the "first boss" and that MI6 was just scratching the surface.

As far as the "bond" stuff goes, missing gadgets, ladies, etc. . . . this wasn't a typical bond film because its not a typical bond story-line. Bond is off his game, he's a recently promoted bond, who was coming off of a great success in Casino Royale, but had that success shattered with the loss of his love interest. Dropping in a bunch of gadgets for the sake of having gadgets or trying to tell the story of retribution for his loss of love while developing a new love story, just wouldn't seem right. I think this was definately a "bridge" movie to bigger and better things with "Q" (dare we say SPECTRE?).

I will say the one thing that really peeves me is the ridiculous action sequences. I don't mind "unbelievable ones" but bond jumping out of a plane and then dropping a shute 80 feet off the ground and surviving with no visable injuries is just stupid.

Sorry, I was too busy lusting after Daniel Craig to really care about the plot.

I think it was awful. Daniel Craig is awful. He never smiles. He always scowls, his mouth is tighter than a chickens a..... Bond has lots of gadgets, which this movies doesn't. DC will never be remembered as Bond. It is time to retire Bond forever. Enough is enough. May Jason Bourne live on forever!!!!

Daniel Craig is my second favorite Bond, slightly behind Sean Connery. I've liked them all. Took me a while to warm up to Brosnan, and I thought Timothy Dalton was quite good and would have been better in better-directed and better-screenplayed movies. My husband and I enjoy the fact that, with Craig, the films feel somehow bigger in scope and feel like they did in the 60s and 70s. (Don't really know how else to describe it.) Craig is a Bond I could sink me teeth into. He's the least one-dimentional of the bunch, although a break in the intensity would be alright. He seems more burdened than other Bonds, which makes his movies, however good, less fun. Hoping Daniel Craig sticks around for a while.

When you don't understand the plot when many others did, maybe that is a reflection of your inadequacies, not the screenwriters'.

I suspect that this is part 2 of a trilogy, the information regarding Quantum is deliberately vague. Many of criticized the "lower stakes" of the film, but when you look at "water as a resource" and "quantum" as a coy name, think perhaps "cold fusion" for part 3.

I enjoyed it, not as much as 'Casino Royale', but Craig is the real deal.

WE CAN ALL AGREE.

I thought Quantum was good, not as good as Casino Royale, but the direction of the Bond films is much better now than in the 90s. I like how James Bond is more believable now. He doesn't have a flying car or a laser watch. He just out smarts people or beats them up. I find it refreshingly realistic. Also the darker tone is truer to life. You think you'd be happy having to kill people all the time or having your friends get killed? Probably not. Sure, Bond could be a little wittier, but the new direction is much better than what was happening before.

The movie was too violent, and not clever as were the older Bond movies. They used to have good plots, which have apparently been eliminated in favor of raw violence.

Excellent. You don't go to a Bond movie for WAR AND PEACE. You go because they are fun and a thrill ride. This movie delivered. Daniel Craig is a great James Bond. Although I'm no fan of the CIA, I still wish Americans didn't come off so poorly in these features, however. Still it's a small price to pay for a fantastic movie thrill.

How can you have Bond without the gadgets and the last scene where he is in bed with the beautiful lead lady, After all that they have gone through together during "mission" it always was truly the best way to end a Bond movie, just like the books.
Next time PLEASE stay true to the BOND format (books) and the reason we all so love him dearly. But for all of our sakes please, please PLEASE DON"T make the Love scenes explicit !!!! Remember, it is the mystique, not the action

Bourne, James Bourne?
It was entertaining, but felt sort of underdeveloped. I do like Daniel Craig as Bond. Casino Royale raised the bar a lot. That's what made Quantum so disappointing. Keep the new edge, but don't forget the charm and humor that set Bond apart from all the other mindless action movies,

After seeing this movie I have to say that Daniel Craig is a great James Bond. Does the killer and lover roles equally well, and you can see behind those cold blue eyes he is one driven dude. Kudos to Craig! Thought the opening credits were a nice nod to tradition, with the latest pop stars and the usual nudes, loved it. I agree with those who say this was lacking in the drama and dialog department. Though the action scenes were very entertaining, the story line was weak with little attempt to create story we could all understand and believe. One complaint I have is about the camera work and editing. Too many fraction of a second cut scenes and way too much of the hurried, frantic editing that I found to be distracting from the beautiful locations. Too much lightening fast camera work and music video style editing that gets exhausting after two hours. Not a bad Bond, but could be better!

Casino Royale was such a big success because it had a plot that made sense, the glamour we expect from a Bond movie, violence and sensuality in the right dose, and as a big bonus, a love story. Quantum of Solace had neither of the above, and that's why it felt disappointing. The only thing that saved the movie from being a total flop was Daniel Craig, a pleasure to watch.

Excellent movie and I loved the action scenes. However, I agree, I would love a bit more wit to distinguish this more from Bourne – Bond, James Bond. I did not think that initially I would like Daniel Craig as I loved Pierce Brosnan, but he is proving to be a "real" Bond in his own right.

I sincerely loved Casino Royale, but Quantum left all the best parts behinds while exploiting all the worst parts. Every action sequence in Quantum of Solace (and there were, perhaps, too many) was shot and edited to almost intentionally keep you from knowing what's going on, thanks to the frantic nature of the effort. The filmmakers took advantage of splicing in completely unrelated footage, in addition to utilizing shots that were taken from the shoulder of a sprinting cameraman. Absolutely and teeth-grindingly terrible.

The first twenty minutes of the film were wasted like this, and it's no wonder they were handing out free ibupropfen to everyone as they left.

Sorely disappointed.

Loved every minute, Daniel Craig is the BEST BOND- I never liked Bond movies before his, (there was always too much T&A and nonsense). This was allot like a Bourne movie, and I geuss thats why I liked it. Most Bond films always seemed so tongue in cheek, ridiculously acted. Loved this movie.

It was the same as the last 25. Ok so I know there hasn't been 25...yet...

I was very disappointed. Not the usual caliber of a Bond move. The "Bond Girls" had absolutely no chemistry with Bond. Craig shows no personality. M was great and is developing into a great partner for Bond. Where was the gadgetry – that's part of the enigma of a Bond movie. I really belive the Bond serious would be better served with an actor who has more personality on-screen, such as Jason Statham...now that's Bond material!!! sizzle hot!!!

I thin what alot of people are forgetting is that this is his coming out as an agent he was just promoted in Casino Royale, yeah he doesnt have the fancy gadgets yet but thats not the point of this movie he is pissed off he wants revenge no matter what it says Foster did a good job in this movie because the point is to look past the action and in the underlying motives of the movie you can see that the wreckless behavior is his pain and anger. this movie was about getting even and its obvious to see that he is still going through the his loss. He doesnt do the normal thing that bond does because he is a new bond and he is developing himself for example even though he doesnt ask for the martini shaken not stired it is implied with the ingredients they are still building that image Craig is becoming one of the best bonds ever and he is making the character what it should be, its the in your face bond that builds the reputation that bond will later have.

It was OK. I enjoyed it. But I don't think it was great. I don't even think it was as good as some of the previous Bond flicks. Sure, special effects have gotten better. But, if you put that aside, it just wasn't on the same scale as "Goldfinger", for example. I also think Bond has gotten just a little too edgy.
As an aside, I wish I had watched Casino Royale again before viewing this flick. This one picks up where it left off and it was not fresh enough in my memory for me to connect with all the references.

Horrible. I have seen every Bond film, all of them multiple times, and this was simply horrible. Too much action and not enough plot. You couldn't tell what was going on in the action scenes, either, with the shaky camera. Abosolutely a disappointment.

I agree with most – this film was pretty disappointing, however, I do not hold Daniel Craig responsible – he did was well as could be expected given the script he had to work with. This movie focused considerably too much attention on action scenes – and completely lost touch with the actual story line. It started with vindication for Vespa – however this was not resolved until the last five minutes which resulted in a very lackluster ending ...

I hopeful that Bond will be resurrected with Craig in the lead role, however someone better start shopping for an actual script with a storyline ....

Having read quite a few of Flemings novels I feel Craig's Bond is very true to the charecter Fleming created. He was a blunt instrument who used brute force. I thought Quantum was excellent. Bond is developing into the Bond of later Connery films and for the first time we have gotten a glimpse of what makes Bond tick, why he was untouchable emmotionally For those that missed the gadets etc there is already talk of bringing back Q branch in the next installment. This to me was a top notch Bond film and I am excited to see where the producers take it from here. I am truely looking forward to further development of the Bond charecter, something that we rarely get to see.

I have seen every Bond Movie since Dr. No, and I will have to say that this Bond movie, had no substance. The plot was never well defined. James Bond's lines seem to have been reduced. The romantic interest was never developed. One bedroom scene, was not even a bedroom scene, and having two women as an interest seemed to have given the main lead, shortshift. The Villian, needed something to make him appear more mean. a monkey on the back, a cat, a parrot , something to add more depth to his character. The scene with Bond falling from the plane with no parachute was a bit far fetched. Last but by no means least, there was no new gagets, presented in this new film. That was a shame.

people, lest we forget, the ORIGINAL Bond ( the books, not the cartoonish versions we saw from Moore, Bronson, et al) was a loner, was dark, was an assassin, was cold blooded and was haunted. When you take Casino Royale and pair it with QoS, you get the complete picture: a new 00 agent who got his) status with his first two kills, one who let his guard down and was betrayed, and as a result is ruthless, cavalier towards women, lives for the moment and vengeful. I don't need gadgets to tell a great story. However, the two Bond women were unbelievably gorgeous.

not the bond movie which i expected..
fight scenes so fast that u are forced to close your eyes..no wit,no glamour..
where is Q,moneypenny,Bond theme and Bob dialogues..
daniel craig looks like a bond villian than a bond..wil have to bear him one more movie.. anyway a bond movie is a bond movie..cant miss it..

WE CAN ALL AGREE –Daniel Craig is a good Bond.
However, he doesn't write the movies and he only reads what he's givin. I am a dyed in the wool Bond Fan(atic), but the producers missed the mark and we can only hope that they read these entries from all of us. Opening receipts from the box office were fantastic, but word of mouth will quickly send this movie to DVD. In the end it will be a moneymaker, but I predict the next movie will be; longer, have some Bond "Quips", Moneypenny, Q, gadgets, a better car (what happened to the "Vanish", machine guns–heck even be bulletprooff), a better villain with some decent henchmen, more women (with politically correct-yet racey names) but much less of "M" (what was up with that, does the 'M" stand for Bonds "Mommy") and hopefully a good soundtrack.

Get Paul McCartney to do the next one. He understands the gendre, the blend of trumpets, the sounds of all the classic Bond songs and of course the Bond Theme and after all the guy is British !!! "Hello"

PS: The bloody gun barrel is supposed to be at the beginning of the movie, not a way of introducing the final credits.

I hope the next movie has something to do with a plot invloving the 2012 Londan England Olympics. A perfect venue for terrosists and the introduction of SPECTRE. I thought that was where they were going with Villains meeting in Quantam. Maybe I'll write the next film.
You heard it here first.

Love D Craig as Bond. Wasn't crazy about the movie. Lack of ANY cool gadgets, or intrigue. Was all too fast action - hard to follow. Villain was o.k., but lacked the feeling there was something bigger behind the one guy...
Bottom line, good potential - director sucked.

I love Daniel Craig as the new Bond but I have to say, first week box office numbers clearly were a reflection of great marketing/cross promotions by the studios, a FANTASTIC trailer that started running in the spring, and a great movie that preceeded this one.

The set up was awesome. As for the movie, it was action packed and moved well, but I was disappointed with the story line and at times, was difficult to follow. I was surprised that Jeffrey Wright (who is outstanding) did not have a more significant role. Also the other would-be villians in the movie just disappeared from the story following the breach at the show. Clearly, the "Greene" charachter is the main villian but for me, the movie left a few voids and at the end I felt like it was a bit uneventful. I didn't feel like I wasted my money, but I left appreciating the prior film that much more.

Quantum was packed with plenty of action, wit and innuendo. It shows how Bond finally becomes Bond. Questions were answered and more were raised. Craig is a new Bond for old fans and new. His rebirth was a much needed change to the character who became monotonous and campy over the years. I have been a Bond fan since the beginning, and am still a Bond fan. The only large criticism, would be for the directing of this film. It would be nice to see wider shots of the action scenes, instead of being thrown into the scenes. But that is minor, since the cast carries the film very very well.

He looks too much like Putin. And I don't find either of them attractive when they take their shirts off. Kenneth Branagh, Sean Bean, Clive Owen or Ralph Fiennes would have all been better (at least more attractive Bonds!

one of the worst - this is NOT true James Bond. He makes the worst James Bond ever. It was a great action movie but NOT a James Bond - music, gadgets, quibs, etc. very very lacking. Get rid of him and get a real hunk

As a major Bond fan, this is the worst Bond film to date.
The story is stolen from 3 previous Bond films. License to Kill, GoldFinger, and the Majesty/Diamonds duet. Majesty serving as the prequel.

The action is ridiculously edited lacking any coherency, the dialouge is so fast an unemotional it's stale. And the storyline is weak at best.

Cmon, hording water for exclusive rights in Bolivia is hardly a Bond Villian, more or less an organization....

There's NO gadgets at all, Q is still MIA, and he only Bond girl worth looking at dies in 10 minutes.. And she never wears anything remotly sexy.

Bonds best pick up line is "help me find some stationary?" Give me a break. I don't blame Craig, but I do seriously blame the writer director and editor for this lame addition to the bond films.

My assessment: The movie was lousy. I think the producers could have taken the story line (that starts off from where the previous one left off) and made it into a really strong story. Instead, what we see is a movie that reminded me of a quilt: a patchwork of different items stitched together, all in the name of a movie. The villain played his part well, but the plot was just too lame, and the final scene where Vesper's boyfriend is tracked down is a major anti-climax.

) The opening song – saw video wk. or so ago – too much screaming, liked tune though. Where's Amy – Ha!
2) Needed motion sickness pills after opening car chase. Yuck!
3) The Bond girls are "not all that!"
4) My 9 yr. old said Casino Royale was great and the story line was much easier to follow. She kept asking me who Bond was after and why. She was bored halfway through the movie. Now that's sad...
5) I like the fact that Mr. White is still alive to be hunted down. Also, glad Bond found Vesper's thug boyfriend and showed "new Vesper" the boyfriends "true colors."
6) I was disappointed – to say the least!

Casino was better. I like Craig as Bond, but not enough plot in this one (really short – too much action) and they have to stop moving the cameras around so much, it makes me dizzy, it does not add to the action sequences. Hollywood needs to get over this craze.
(Cloverfield, Bourne, and all these movies need to get steady camera work.)
This Bond Girl added nothing to the movie and was a waste of time. Bond should have gone this one alone.

Is this the "new Bond" trend? the lack of gadgets, his fancy car destroyed within the first minutes of the movie, a less than perfect body (shirt off scene), dirty for most of the movie, and not so much a womanizer – is a complete departure from the Bond of yesteryear. There was the token "Ms. Fields" added for the retro effect who ended up with Black Gold instead of Yellow Gold in the end. Sort of a letdown when you follow the franchise.

Daniel Craig is EXCELLENT as James Bond...EXCELLENT... The best ever....keep on doing what your doing...smashing good show.

I am a die hard 007 fan. I grew up with bond starting with the best Bond film of all times, 'Goldfinger'. There was a Bond formula that most Bond films have followed that made them successful. That was to have a larger than life bad guy who you wanted to see get his in the end, a plot that you could follow with obvious people or countries in jeopardy, Q, great Bond music throughout the film starting with a good opening song, beautiful women, action, and a sense of humor.
The only thing that the new Bond film had was action and beautiful women. It was confusing from the start and stayed that way throughout. The plot was muddy and I mostly missed the Bond music in the action scenes. The opening song stunk. (Where is the Shirley Bassey style?)
Please, Please, Please give us our old Bond, James Bond back.
Long live 007!!!

all of you that want the funny and the gadgets, all want the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig is way more like Connery then any other bond so far.
I think the people that didn't like the film need to step back to a few things:
1. its a bond film, they're all cheesy action flicks
2. go back and read iam fleeming's work, bond was dark
3. go back and watch connery's bond character. i think a lot of people today talk about connery like they've seen all of his bonds, but they haven't, he wasn't overly funny, he was much darker, it was roger moore who turned bond into a funny character with witty quips, etc,
if roger moore had not have been in bond, he could have been a stand up. regardless, if you think connery is king of the bonds, but don't like daniel crag, have you ever watched a connery bond flick????

I liked it, heck I loved it – why?

Daniel Craig – he is full blast, and takes the part seriously. When you are the intelligence agency of an island, you have to work harder.

The British agents in these movies, are not part-time spys – they are tough, unforgiving, ruthless, and hard hard men and women. They give no quarter, and make no apology. Finally, a movie where the good guy is relentless, knows what he is fighting for, and doesn't take silly side trips to philisophical land. remember, these men and women are Soldiers of the Extreme Kind....

sweet

Daniel Craig makes a good Bond, but the Bond girls were nothing to write home about, there were no gadgets ( not even a watch!), the car was wasted and i didnt understand the plot. Give Craig something to work with in the next one.

I haven't seen this Bond movie yet and based on what people have been saying, I might not. At least not at want they want for ticket prices. I've seen several of the interviews he's done and I can't say I'm impressed. I really like Rick Z's idea about the Olympics. I used to like the movies because of the gadgets they had.

A lot of folks (professional critics as well as fans) have comparing this to the "Bourne" movies. Excuse me, but what happened to when it was the BOND movie setting the trends, not following them?

This without a doubt was the worst Bond movie ever! Ever! I was looking forward to this movie and very happy to get tickets for the premiere...
But what I saw was bad action flick with good action if that makes any sense. No charm. No humor. Nothing. Just action and we gotplenty of that in the last decade from all kind of movies ranging from A class to D class. I want my money back!
And to kill off one bond girl by covering her in oil? That should be a reference to Goldfinger? Copying a brilliant idea from one of the best Bond movies is just lacking creativity. And Bond movies were always about new ideas and creativity. Highly disappointing.

Bond is back, well maybe. I thought the acting and action was good, however, the story line was weak. Daniel Craig is a good Bond and has great potential. Maybe the next time, Bond will be back..... Overall, a rate this a "B".

The only thing I really missed from this movie was having that one action scene where the Bond theme kicks in and totally rocks.

Daniel Craig is great. It's great to see that they are having a multi-film character arc for Bond. I'm guessing that after he obviously battles Quantum in the next film, that he will become the super spy we know and love.

I do kind of wish all of the action scenes had been a little less frenetic and displayed a little more continuity.

Love the new Bond and the new direction the series is taking. The movie itself, however, was not as good as I had hoped.

Dissapointed. Annoying fast-edit action scenes; weak story; boring villian; I mean c'mon...water??? I'm done with wasting my $$ at the movies anymore.

Pros:
Cinematography was impressive.

Cons:
The worst villian ever ... he looked like he guy that sat in front of me in high school. I felt like i could kick his ass. What happened to the immortal-like villians? if you need my help i can come up with a slew of them. I have drawings too.

What happened to the hot bond chics?

Plot anyone? plot please.

No bloody gadgets!! That is quintessential to every bond movie!! what the heck??? its a bond movie not the transporter!

Please bring pierce brosnan back. bring that bloke back pls .. this craig guy is a disaster.

I liked it, but it didn't really seem like a Bond movie to me. We always enjoyed all of the cool gadgets and awesome cars. I mean what's up with all of the Ford SUVs? The only awesome car got destroyed in the first 10 minutes. And where was Q? Q was always the comic relief. And, like it or not, the corny lines with beautiful women have always been part of the Bond appeal. Daniel Craig to me is just not Bond–a good actor but not Bond.

I agree with many comments that it didn't quite feel like TRADITIONAL Bond movie in that there were no gadgets and "Bond, James Bond", but I think that's OK since it was a continuation of the Casino storyline. This might be released on DVD as one whole movie and then I think people will change their minds. That said, to make it all make sense, perhaps the next film's opening sequence is Bond finally finding the actual individual responsible for Vesper's death and killing him in some fantastic way...very visceral and gratifying. That would facilitate the closing of one story and a lead in to the next. Still keeps Quantum as an organization alive but Bond could go on some other mission. I think the film will be seen in a better light as the series with Craig continues. It was fun for sure, but certainly not one of the best. AND Craig is a great Bond

I thought the last film, "Casino Royale" was borderline un-James Bond, but "Quantum of Solace" pushed over that edge. The villains weren't simply evil, and they didn't have a hardcore side, like crying blood. Bond villains are distinct, but the villains in this movie could have been from any action movie. Not to mention that the movie was political, which is very un-Bondlike. It dealt more with foreign policy issues than with badguys and evil. The action scenes seemed old, the addition of Fords rather than typical Bond cars was uninteresting, and although Daniel Craig is an amazing actor, James Bond still isn't back to being James Bond. He's still not a womanizer. I expect a lot from the third Daniel Craig Bond film after the disappointment of "Quantum of Solace". They have a lot of making up to do.

I liked it, overall. I like how they are continuing to explore Bond's origins. He's not "there" yet, as Sean Connery was "there" with Dr. No and the character has been that way until Casino Royale. I definitely like that he didn't sleep with the girl – I hope her character comes back in an updated Moneypenny-style role. USEFUL and somewhat flirty with Bond without sleeping with him.

I also loved that the gun barrel came at the end of the movie, just as "Bond. James Bond." came at the end of Casino Royale. We're seeing the producers retrofit and form the character into the one we're familiar with.

What I didn't like was the dreadful direction of the action scenes. I like Marc Forester (loved Finding Neverland and Stranger than Fiction), but I'm glad to know he won't be coming back. From the opening car chase, you couldn't tell what was going on. Car wheel - cut to Bond - cut to gun - gunshots - cut to skidding wheel –cut to a horse race - cut to car crashing - cut to bullet holes...each shot came too fast to orient what's going on (Who just crashed? Who just got shot?).

Also, since the chase comes right after the title sequence, I must say: the title sequence itself was beautiful despite the song they chose (which is too bad; I love Jack White and Alicia Keys). But the switch from those flowing mysterious desert landscapes to these split second cuts in the case scene was jarring.

Honestly, too, I'm not a fan of Bond getting sloppy drunk. You can see the sadness in his eyes (that's what acting is!); we didn't need a scene with him drinking endlessly into the night to know he's a heartbroken chap (or the drawn out nod at the martini).

That said, I look forward to the third Daniel Craig Bond movie. Should be a doozy as he finds out more about this Quantum gang... All I ask is that they let us SEE the action next time around.

Quantom is a great addition to the Bond franchise. The building of Bond's character through Casino and Quantom was fabulous. In order to move to the next chapter of the new Bond, the story needed to be closed. The introduction of a new evil empire Quantom was also wrapped into the story. We are all waiting for SOME, of the Bond elements to get wrapped in to the movies. I think that will happen as Daniel Craigs portrayal of Bond unfolds. Overall I thought it was a fantastic movie, and really could not have been done any other way.

Here is a brief review from a die-hard Bond fan who has read every Fleming novel and seen nearly every film in the theater. Just FYI, Sean Connery is my favorite Bond and always will be, but Craig's may become my 2nd best. I loved Casino Royale and had high expectations for the follow up. I must say that I was disappointed in the new film. The comparisons to Bourne are totally warranted as is the criticism of the choppily edited action sequences. To me this is more a sign of a director who is not confident/competent doing action sequences more than it is a choice of style. Next, in regards to Bond being portrayed as a cold blooded killer being closer to the 00 agent Fleming envisioned, true Bond was a tough as nails operative who would do whatever it took including getting his hands bloody if necessary in order to acheive his goal. But, he did not relish in it and there was always a humanity to him which he was always in fear of losing. He did have a weakness for women, which both Casino and Quantum do a good job of exploring. But, the way this film dealt with Bond's one tryst was pathetic. Just a trow away scene as if the writers felt obliged to put it in but did so with contempt. Almost, like how they mock the whole martini, but nowhere near as clever. First of all, why would M send a beautiful young desk clerk to pick up Bond knowing what he is? Second, I don't care if you are James Bond, taking off your coat and asking a girl to help you find the stationary alone is not going to get you laid. The way Bond seduced the girl from the beach in the 1st film was handled in a far superior fashion. Yes, us Bond fanatics want our romance almost as muchas we want our action. Lastly, this film completely lacked a compelling villian or even a formidable henchman both which are absolutely a must in any Bond film or novel. This also helped make the movie's ending anticlimactic. Bond kills all kinds of people to get to the man responsible for Vesper's death and then all he does is make the guy look bad in front of his new girl. Weak! I'm glad he didn't kill him, but I at least would have liked a look see when he interrogated him.

The "new Bond" is refreshing. The series had lost me back during the Roger Moore era. (Jaws character chasing Goldie locks?) way over the top in the "campy" department. Pierce Brosnan was too pretty. Remember Bond fans "Licensed to kill!" a guy has to get a little cut up and scratched when in a fight. Oh yes, still has the scratch at the end of the film too. They finally got Bond right!!! I will conceed that it could use just a couple more Hot Bond Girls and a Gadet or two but, keep it realistic to soem degree. Easy adjustment. No more of that rediculous 'chop off a continent' or 'drain Lake Superior' silly stuff as before.
Please continue with the cold blooded, hired assassin, love em & leave em (without the wisecracks) Bond.

I think the new bond is extremely sexy, mysterious and ready to defend me at a moment's notice.

The other bond movies were so unrealistic. They hardly broke a sweat as they fought some of the most sinister villians in the world.

Give me more of the new bond, I'll take it any day.

Dreadful opening song. If they wanted Fiona Apple, they should have gotten her instead of that screeching cat, Jack White.

But Craig is the best Bond yet. He is tough, cold, and ruthless, yet somehow manages to bring a degree of vulnerability to the role that makes him seem more believable than previous versions. What a lot of folks may be missing with this latest incarnation of Bond is that it is just that – reincarnation.

Has it occurred to anyone that James Bond is a code name that MI6 keeps alive with a different agent through the years? It may not be implicit in the original books, but it is certainly a handy device for the films' producers. Our hero alwas says, "The name is Bond, James Bond." Not, "My Name is Bond..." When M responds to Bond's question about how she knew he would continue the case in Casino Royale by saying, "When I knew you were you." It is another hint to this end.

We are watching the promotion and transition of a brutal assassin into the more refined role of super spy. This is further tipped by the scene in which Vesper supplants his choice of dinner jacket and he reluctantly admires the fit in the mirror. This Bond is just getting used to his new skin.

The evolution continues in Quantum as Bond shows he's developed a taste for the finer things by passing on Strawberry Field's choice of hotel in favor of something more grand.

As for the Bourne-style fight sequences, they put the viewer into the middle of the action and are much more powerful than the traditional "fly-on-the-wall" view. But too much of a good thing isn't always better. Hopefully the next episode in this intriguing arc will find a better balance between story and action.

I truely enjoyed this Bond movie. Daniel Craig is the Bond more like the Ian Fleming novels. But the movie was way to quick with it's scenes that made it look choppy and never did give Bond a relation to anyone like in Casino Royal. I don't think ian Fleming would have Bond leave Vesper in a dumpster. This Bond is colder than all the others. I will say he is more physical and cunning than the earlier Bonds with the exception of Connery. But A Bond film is expected to use some gadgets. It is a Bond film tradition. Bond needs a Q. This Bond also needs a little wit. He is too cold hearted. I understand it could be from losing his true love in Casino Royal. After all Bond is suppose to be a super spy, a 007 spy with a license to kill but he over does it a little.

I will go see the third movie.

I do miss the Bond theme though. This Bond movie with out the Bond theme felt like a Bourne movie with amnesia.

There's a scene in Casino Royale where Bond gets off the plane in the Bahamas. The gorgeous Bond music swells, and you realize, "THIS IS A BOND MOVIE." Unfortunately there was none of that in this movie. All action, no subtlety. I had high hopes for this film based on how much I loved the last one, but it wasn't even close. But Daniel Craig is still the best Bond ever.

If you like reading the books then Daniel Craig is the real bond. I like the change. He seems more human/real than the past 3 bonds. Remember Casino Royale was a whole book. Quantum of Solace was a 5 page short story. They are running out of stories!

Quantum of Solace was absolutely dreadful.
The Bourne movies are 10X better.
All the villains in Quantum seem very Emo and weak. None of those dudes were really threatening.The whole "motor oil" sequence was stupid.
Daniel Craig is a good actor, but he is NOT hot. Let's keep it real ladies. Can you imagine him rescuing you from a burning room? Hell no. I'll take my chances and rescue my damn self.

Action sequences: Lame
Plot: Extra Lame
Russian chick: Super Lame

First, I love Daniel Craig (after saying no one could ever equal Sean Connery) as Bond. Love that edgy – yet vulnerable vibe. I hadn't gone to see a Bond movie in the theatre post- Connery or pre-Craig because I didn't find Roger Moore (ugh), Timothy Dalton (Zzzzz), Pierce Brosnan (too clean) appealing. When "Casino Royale" came out, I only went because hubby and I had a date night. We came out of the theatre thinking that it was fantastic – fast action, witty dialog banter, cool gadgets, great Bond girl and Daniel Craig was excellent.

So we were really looking forward to "Quantum". Didn't enjoy it as much. Like most of the comments here, I thought there were waaaay too many chase scenes – I think they used every mode of transportation except a train. Didn't like the Bourne-type of editing/camera work. BORING Bond girls, Roman Polanski twin bad guy was annoying, and no real story or plot. In "Casino Royale" you had emotions for both the good and bad guys but in this one, it was zilch. Too bad Martin Cambell didn't direct "Quantum", it may have been smarter and more enjoyable.

Quantum of solace was quite different from the regular bond movies. except for the starting credit song, i enjoyed the entire movie. Infact, it was so well made that a Q would have just spoiled the pace...
Daniel Craig goes next 2 Connery as Bond..he is perfect, phenomenal...
and it is the first in the series to give Bond movies a sequel like feel...there is a lot to anticipate from this Bond movie and this Bond...
Hats off!
Great job!

there were no fun Bond Gadgets is there no more Q type guys? where are the fun toys like a watch with hidden microphone or pen that is a gun obviously i am not very creative but i would think they would have kept the tradition and had at least ONE good gadget.

You know there is a reason that there have been so many comical spoofs of the Bond movies and that is because they did not have to make much of a stretch to show how ridiculous many were. Someone who is supposed to have graduated from MI6 to something beyond would be much more like Connery or Craig. I think that in many ways this Bond is a reboot of the series much like how Batman was successfully recreated.

This new Bond style is such a refreshing change of pace compared to the awful attempts of rehashing the same martini drinking, womanizing, one liners, and silly (yet cool) gadgets of old Bond. Granted Craig is no Sean Connery, but he is coming into his own. I like the discipline, focus, and intensity that this "new" Bond has. If you want funny one liners and gadgets you should check out the Get Smart movie with Steve Carell.

As a Bond afficionado, I was rather disappointed with the latest installment "Quantum of Solace". However, seeing this movie is like voting for John McCain because you're a Republican: it's all about loyalty.

The movie went downhill after the interrogation scene with "Mr. White". What struck me as odd was the length of the movie. Normal Bond movies (granted this is the 21st century) are just over two hours long. When the movie ended not only did I say to myself, "Is that it?" I looked at my phone to see that the movie clocked in at just over 1 hour 40 minutes. It became painfully obvious at this time that the action sequences kept the movie alive.

In addition, Dominic Greene's character has to be ranked as one of the worst villians along with Elliot Carver (Tomorrow Never Dies) and Carl Stromberg (The Spy Who Loved Me). The crime organization he worked for might as well have been led by Dr. Evil.

As painful as it may sound, I think Amy Winehouse and Jack White might have been a better match for the theme song. Don't get me wrong–I am a huge fan of Alicia Keys but she and Jack White didn't mesh well. I give the theme song a C+ but it could have been better.

A few positives include top-rate action sequences and a lack of gadgets. Despite the hollow plot, the movie struck me as a cross between "From Russia With Love" (true espionage) and "Licence to Kill (torn between revenge and Queen & Country). Daniel Craig and Judi Dench were solid as usual in their respective roles as "007" and "M". Their screen presence along with Jeffrey Wright as "Felix Leiter" made the movie easier to stomach. I had to watch "Die Another Day" on Spike TV later that evening just to get the taste of a bad Bond movie out of my mouth.

Here's hoping the DVD is extened another 15-20 minutes with scenes that make the movie seem more reasonable in terms of length of time. Overall, this was the worst Bond movie since "The Man With The Golden Gun". My advice: no more sequels and bring back Q Branch and Monypenny.

The new Bond is doing to the whole series what Dark knight did for the whole Comic movies genre. They are setting a standard that is high intellectually. This is 2009 not 1969, battles and wars not fought with fancy gadgets and womanizers withe cheesy one liners. The new Bond is perfect for this day and age and I really love how there are still people who make intelligent movies not cheesy corny movies. If I wanted to see that I would watch the incredibles or wall-e. Just like I want more movies like the Dark Knight and less like the original Hulk, or spiderman 3 or Dare Devil, I want more of Quantum of Solace and less of anything that Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton ever made. I would rather see a movie which has action close to reality than one with cheesy non belivable or non existing gadgets. Another thing women do not sleep with you because of cheesy one liners in pansy British accents.

Where the hell were his gadgets? Bond ALWAYS had gadgets of all kinds. Daniel Craig is a great Bond. He is a great actor, wonderful eyes and a smashing body...just what a Bond character requires.

Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond. The action scenes were hard on the eyes, but I blame that on the editing. Lots of depth to this Bond, I loved it.

I think Craig is a great Bond. For me, he and Roger Moore have been the only acceptable substitutes for Sean Connery up to this point.

Well.....what to say.....

Craig makes an interesting new Bond, hardcore and different but the movie was a little too Jason Borne instead of James Bond. The movie franchise (w/ Craig) needs to have it's own identity instead of being a knockoff of Jason B.
Truly missed Moneypenny and Q-Branch, after all, even with his amazing physique and skills, James still needs an extra edge over his foes in an emergency.
Plus, where are the top henchmen/killers like Grant, Stamper, Oddjob, Xenia Onatopp (not Jaws, too comic-bookish). Someone to make Bond worry and sweat.....someone's who' s not so easy to take out....

As for an organization called Quantum, not exactly SPECTRE but I'll be looking forward to who's running the group and maybe a new versions of Oddjob or Xenia (thought that she'll make a great recurring villain but that's just me...)....

Otherwise, an better than average exciting action film with no Bondian quips or an villain that stands out....I say B minus as an average.

So far the absolute worst Bond film ever. The movie was ok, but you wouldn't have kown it was a Bond film unless they used his name, otherwise you would have assumed it was Jason Bourne only taller, older with bad skin.

Not one, not a single gadget was shown, where the hell was R or Q??? Oh and if Tom Ford designed the clothes, I would totally have thought this guy would have ROCKED a wicked wardrobe, he looked normal, which isn't bad but I mean come on...He's 007.

Judy Dench however, is a great addition, this beeyatch steals the scenes she's in...who would have thunk it.

Next time, WAY MORE GADGETS, find a good plot, enough with the brooding bond, sweating is cool, but that's for humans, not BOND!!!

Daniel Craig is the one of the best Bonds I have ever seen on screen. OfCourse, I'm still a big fan of the charming Roger Moore. Craig does have the closest resemblance to the actual Bond character described in Ian Flemings novels. I would suggest the following upgrades for the next one:

* A scene with Moneypenny.
* Since Mr.Q is no more. Not sure what could be done here.
* Cut down on the moving camera action shots. One or two is fine.
* Addition of sense of humor, but cold and mysterious at the same moment.
* Spies do get cool gadgets when they are on the field.
* A little more usage of the Bond music.
* Better theme song and graphics.
* Emphasis more on Bond tactical skills than physical skills.
* International locations and culture a key for Bond movies.

Again, Craig is a brilliant as bond.

The old James Bond is dead.
This is the post-Bourne era of secret agentry, and blaming director Marc Forster for going in that direction makes about as much sense as criticizing filmmaker's renewed enthusiasm towards hyper-kung fu action post-Matrix!!!
Daniel Craig was awesome in "Quantum of Solace," and he IS OUR Bond!

Was the movie EXCELLENT! NO.
Things the movie did well.
1. Great Bond Daniel Craig is really good in this role.
and thats it. The rest of the movie was horrible. Everything Bond touched blew up, got broke, broke, killed, and smashed in one way. You knew as soon as he walked in a room something bad was going to happen. No suspense no whew and awe's. NOTHING. There was no witty lines. There were 20 different story lines and none of them made sense and felt joined together (ala HEROS season 2). With Bond films you expect a certain un-reality with the movie. We know the technology doesn't exist (yet). This movie through physics right out of the window. Hotel blowing up for no reason. Then it stops blowing up for a fight scene between boss and bond. Soon as that done the hotel starts blowing up more. Here's another good one. Parachuting out of a plane pull cord at last minute survive fall with no scratches. Um not a expert isn't that the same theory of jump at last minute in a elevator and you might survive the plunge. NOT GOING TO happen.

Quantum of Solace is a good Bond film. Not a great one. Not as good as Casino Royale, but Daniel Craig is compelling enough to keep the audience interested. Hoping for the best yet in the next installment. Got to remember how awful the franchise was for almost 20 years of Roger Moore. The next film won't have Bond unavailable for romantic chemistry with the Bond girl, whomever she is. A gadget or two wouldn't hurt, but keep the edge on Bond. He's the anti Moore Bond and it is a great improvement. Is it me or was having two of the enemies being Mr. White and Mr. Green make me think the writers were paying homage to Reservoir Dogs? Please get a better song writing team for the next movie. Bond is and always has been about attitude. Kudos for the evolution to the 21st century. We'll be watching.

Dude,

It has no depth, nothing memorable, it's kinda lame and forgettable..Alicia Keys' and Jack White's Bond Song is horrible...They must have raced through the mix because the backup vocals are off key, it's lousy...There is no traditional Bond Music and no Bond Boning, no sexual tension and no reasoning, no thought, no nada...The scenes in Panama are very good...Bonds former Nemesis dies in his arms, and that guy is a great actor...Without Gambling and Sex it just doesn't work...

First, let me say that I thought Casino Royale was the best bond film ever. I thought Daniel Craig really hit it out of the ball park. The movie was stylish and intelligent. That's the good news.

The bad news is this...Quantum of Solace, was a huge disappointment. No substance, no chemistry with the Bond girl, no significant plot and most of all, an insignificant bad guy.

I went to see a James Bond movie. When the movie started it was all action and fantastic. This was a good action movie, the only thing missing in the movie was James Bond and his suave, finesse and charm. Also what about the amazing women he should romance, kiss and die for him. No lingerie, no martini, shaken not stirred, no Bond. Actually any other movie is better, try a Bourne Movie or a Transporter Movie. Those characters have substance and lure.

Skip this one until they know how to incorporated James Bond into a Bond Movie!

My 33 year old son and I went to check this film out ,,,,,,,,,,,,entertaining it was but didnt impress me as the first one....not one to have ever liked James Bond films,I sat in the theatre the first time expecting a movie about casinos,,have to say Im hooked now

Loved it... Best one yet!

As a big fan of the Bond franchise, I thought the film was OK. I really liked Casino Royale but I thought this film didn't quite measure up. I could have done with a little less action and a little more dialog. I hope that the next movie will be a return to the more traditional Bond. I'd like to see the return of Moneypenny and Q.

One more thing.... The worst Bond movie EVER?!?!?
I guess that person never got a chance to see Moonraker!

Finally a dark and troubled Bond with a shady past. I think the franchise took notice of the new Batman movies and the Bourne trilogy and realized that any person capable of the actions Bond needs to perform has to have a dark side.

I think Craig is the best Bond since Connery. All the Bonds following Connery had gotten progressively softer and less believable as a agent with a killer instinct. Welcome to the dark side of the force Mr. Bond.

I liked it. I read a few reviews so my expectations were not real high but it was entertaining. I think the fact that it was very action oriented speaks to the emotional state Bond currently in. He lost someone he made himself vulnerable to and in this movie he's trying to stave off coming to terms with those emotions by existing in the physical. In addition to that he is still a freshly minted "00" and doesn't quite have the control of himself or his situations and that shows in the death count and overall destruction.

I disagree with someone saying Craig is the closest to Sean Connery. I like Brosnan because he brought back the image Sean Connery had as James Bond, not Craig.

Because the new films are the forerunners of the BOND story as we know it, Bond has not met Moneypenny and Q. Please research and you will find out what I did that these are the first movies which will set up a re-make of the old outdated bond movies.... I expect Dr No next...

Three embellishments were grossly missed –
MUSIC, CHARM/charisma , BEDDING in that order

Who the hell cares about the plot in a Bond movie.
I would be greatly surprised if it isn't ridiculous. Goldeneye – indeed!

But the music lacked the soul of Bond, the script lacked the charisma of Bond and the girls didn't get any from Bond

My review of "Quantum of Solace" can be found here:
http://brownonbond.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/film-review-quantum-of-solace/

Those who say Pierce Brosnan was the best Bond have (obviously) never read an Ian Fleming Bond novel. Craig's films have been the closest we've gotten to a cinematic Ian Fleming Bond thriller since "The Living Daylights".

Sean Connery's first four Bond flicks were superb. Very Fleming, with a cinematic take on the stories. Following "Thunderball", his Bond films went down the drain, as far as seriousness goes. However, they were quality entertainment.

George Lazenby's single Bond flick was a return to realism, and the return of another cinematic Fleming Bond thriller. Aside from some of the bad acting in the film and choppy editing, it was very enjoyable.

Roger Moore's Bond flicks can't be taken seriously, with the exception of "For Your Eyes Only". Great actor. Bad for Bond.

Timothy Dalton brought back a more realistic, gritty, Fleming-esque Bond with "The Living Daylights". His second outing was quite gritty, also. Overall, he was a wonderful Bond.

Pierce Brosnan's Bond films followed the way of generic action heroes, and threw out much of the Fleming "Bond formula". His four films proved to be nothing better than Vin Diesil's "xXx". That's not Bond... at all. I'll admit though that "GoldenEye" was a fun Bond movie.

Daniel Craig brought Bond from being a joke ("Die Another Day") to reality. Bond's more realistic, he has feelings, the films are grittier, and the two stories (so far), for the most part, are pretty solid. He's got some more films left, so get used to him.

"Quantum of Solace" was an excellent Bond thriller. It had its flaws, but overall, it made for a top-notch Bond flick.

Read my review of the film here:
http://brownonbond.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/film-review-quantum-of-solace/

Did not have any gadgets and not alot of good looking ladys.

too much actions and theres no meaning. i watched most of the james bond and i was content, but this time( quantum of solace) is the worst. daniel craig is only destroying the reputation of the bond identity. again, theres no meaning, in other words no substance at all.

What's with people wanting more realism in movies? Isn't real life real enough for anyone? Shouldn't we be escaping reality when we watch a movie? And you know what? Real spy's probably laugh at Jason Bourne and Bond movies, and rightly so. You know why? IT"S A FRIGGIN' MOVIE! It's a hyper-reality that is the brainchild of someone with an imagination and should be enjoyed only on the level of sensation. If it made you forget, for 2 hours, that your life sucks, then it did it's job. Realism... pfff.

I think we should all take up a collection and by the director a tri-pod! This movie was ok. But it just wasn't James Bond. It felt like it may have been rushed into production before the script was quite finished. I love the relationship between Bond and M. But the direction and the editing made it hard to follow what was happening. This looked more like a Bourne film than a Bond film. Casino Royale hit the nail on the head but this one was just off the mark by a few inches!!!

Too much senseless action. No story line, no plot.

I think a concious attempt was made to make Quantum of Solace a bit 'Bourney'. I think Daniel Craig has done a good job of making James Bond's character more relatable and human. But unlike Casino Royale (which was still weak storywise but atleaset had some element of plot in it).

I would not recommend it around – Sorry Danny!

I think we have to look at this film as an episodic try at finishing the last film .Only a fool would look back at Roger Moore ,and wish we had the same character ,nothing personal MrMoore,but at least you were honest enough with the comment that you laughed all the way to the bank .I also see the cultural influence of 24 here ,with the chronologic continuity ,something we never saw b4 in a Bond film .Yes,I too miss gadgets ,weapons development labs and Moneypenny ,but we are in a Bond evolution ,and Mr.Craig is nothing less than excellent here . Does anyone remember ,in the last film,when Eva Greene referred to Craig as "you SAS types..." in the dining car ?This was a big step in character development ,to go from Sean Connery's Royal Navy Commander to a guy that served in the SAS . This was a 180 degree turn,am I the only Bond fan to notice ? I mean ,cmon,they could have referred to him as an SBS type,at least that would have had a naval heritage to the characterization ,but they chose to move in a much stronger way in this character evolution

Quantum of Solace was phenomenal. Like Casino Royale, it provided a believable, sympathetic character who was nonetheless completely cool. The direction and editing, too, were superb. Before these two films, the Bond franchise had moved steadily from fun (the Connery films) to silly (the Moore films) to blatantly stupid ("Die Another Day"). With precious few exceptions, even the "good" Bond movies have only been good "Bond" movies: the majority were simply awful films based on any other criteria. Thank the film gods that the franchise has been rescued, and let us hope that the producers turn a deaf ear to those complainers now who want a return to nostalgic stupidy in the next movie.

I thought Quantum of Solace was an excellent Bond movie. Not quite as good as Casino Royale but very good. Those who criticize the lack of gadgets or womanizing have got it wrong. Read the original books. Bond is a blunt tool of the British government. There were no gadgets back in the day. Just Bond and the bad guys. The womanizing was always just a little too contrived, as it was in this last one. Good movie and to the haters, get over it.

1. They have the wrong actor for Bond. Gerard Butler would have been a much better choice.
2. Quantum of Solace, as others have noted, was light on story and character development.
3. Too much action and crazy camera cuts/angles, etc.

I wasn't impressed. Bond as we knew him is dead.

In a word: appalling.

One of the weakest plots ever, turgid dialog, ad nauseam dull action sequences, and boring characters - including Bond himself. What a mess of a film. Easily, for me, in the bottom three 007 films ever.

Daniel Craig is dark and mysterious, as the Ian Fleming stories are, but this second Bond film was a string of special effects and little substance. Still, I enjoyed it a little.

Pierce Brosnan with a good bit of The Matador character might be an interesting Bond!

They made Bond like that because it's modern days they don't think anyone would go see the movie if it was like sean connery's bond movies

Where did the gadgets go??? This is a Bond film after all right?? What a terrible way to show tribute to the great Q!!! Besides that I felt this movie was better then Casino Royale. The film could have used a little bit more of a story but overall I did enjoy it.

I'm noticing a lot of people are saying they didn't like the song. Admittedly, I hated it at first. However, after seeing the opening credits for the film, listening to the song several times, and hearing the lyrics through the perspective of the film's plot and mood, I've realized this is actually one of the most clever and intricate Bond themes.

The song is brilliantly multifaceted, while Keyes' and Black's voices come together in a most unique and haunting manner. The lyrics perfectly capture the lack of trustworthiness among the people surrounding Bond in the film, and the fact that Bond finds himself face-to-face with "another way to die" with almost every step he takes and person he meets.

There's no doubt that "Another Way To Die" is more challenging for the listener than many previous Bond themes, but those who are willing to embrace the challenge at take the time to appreciate it will find a true gem in the process.

I hate the theme song and I want to nominate it for a Golden Raseberry Award! It is the worst song ever used in any James Bond movie. All of the previous theme songs in 007 films rated from fair to excellent.

Next time get Eric Clapton, Genesis, or U2. John Bary, (who did most of the music for previous 007 movies), probably hates it as well.

I think the new Bond flick is very good. I think Casino Royale was better, but Quantum Of Solace continues in the same vein as its predecessor. I like the new direction they're taking with the character–he's more realistic, more bad-ass, and less cheesy. I think the reason many of the other Bond films didn't work as well was because they went over the deep end with unrealistic gadgets and vehicles and locales, and played James Bond as nothing more than a womanizing, wise-cracking baccarat player who occasionally actually pulls out a gun. For all the comments about how Ian Fleming wrote him, and harkening back to the Sean Connery days, I believe a character who is supposed to be an expert in hand-to-hand combat, tactics, and killing people shouldn't come off as the playboy of the Western world in every film. It gets old–that's why when the Bourne movies came along, they struck a chord with audiences and changed how a "secret agent film" should be done. Granted, much could be said about a franchise like Bond–that's been around for 45 years–only reacting to Bourne's example instead of leading the way. Bourne is great, but Bond is the original superspy, and I think the studio should have realized long ago that audiences weren't taking Bond seriously anymore. Maybe by showing their own character more respect and giving him films that are worthy of him, they can recreate Bond for the 21st century and bring old and new fans back. I say Bravo! to the new films and Daniel Craig, and here's hoping we get a lot more of him in the future.

With the theme song, though....I have to agree with those who were disappointed with it. It's certainly forgettable, unlike older classics like Live And Let Die, Nobody Does It Better, Goldfinger, etc. Even some of the 80's and 90's films had som decent songs (some were even more memorable than the movies they went with, like View To A Kill). I think that's one of the main stumbling blocks the last two Bond movies have had–I loved Casino Royale and really liked Quantum of Solace, but if someone held a gun to my head, I couldn't tell you the name of either theme song or who sang them, or even what they sounded like. Take a cue from John Williams–it's not always the words to the song that get the message across–he's created songs for 35 years that automatically bring to mind a vivid image...Jaws, Star Wars, Superman, E.T., Indiana Jones. Anyone who ever saw any of those movies can hear one bar of any of their themes and automatically tell you where it's from. I just saw Quantum of Solace three days ago, and if I heard the song in the middle of 4 others on the radio, I wouldn't be able to pick it out of a lineup.

It is about time that this franchise got back on track. This installment was pure revenge, no frills. I like were they are taking this character. I am quite sure that in the next edition we will see more gadgets. Those are ok, but they shouldn't drive the show. Between the stale lines, and gadgets it had gotten boring. I welcome the change.

Didn't like the movie. Story line was anticlimatic. When the end of the movie came I was like...is that it??? Felt like something was missing.

i was so disappointed. i actually thot after ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, i wldnt get worse....it did.

Pierce Brosnan has nothing on Daniel Craig's Bond. Daniel Craig was the perfect choice to play Bond; while not classically handsome– he is piercing... he smolders. I also like how this Bond isn't cheesy. He is real. He's a brutal, violent, smart killer. The fact that he doesn't sleep with the main Bond girl is also interesting. Maybe Camille will be back in a future movie.