Quantum of Solace

[0utKast]

They probably still haven't stopped spinning from the invisible car I expect.

A toilet is a step up from that.

[Alyha]

I was disappointed. Nowhere near as good as CR. It seemed to be quite short, the (lack of) plot was incomprehensible, and there just far too many action sequences.

The only bit I truly loved was the opera scene which was magnificently executed. I wasn't fond of the rest. Not an awful film but not worth the inflated ticket price.

[bobbb]

Bond asked her what her first name was and she refused to tell him.

I never noticed her name on the credits, but I think that was quite a good nod to the old Bond way. Kinda like the way they keep twisting Bond lore in Craig's films (ie. his "Do I look like I give a damn?" in CR when asked if he wanted his martini shaken or stirred)

[LovelyTragedy111]

Much better than I was expecting, given the poor reviews. Thought some of the lines were very clever.

[tRoUbLeDTeEn!!! :p]

Well my theory on the gun barrel is that with Quantum of Solace they've rapped up a 2 part story on the Beginnings of Bond, with Vesper in Casino Royale and Bond's revenge in Quantum of Solace. It all revolves around Vesper.

I agree that these 2 films have missed out on some of it's biggest traditions. Where was the gun barrel in Casino Royale? There was an alternative after the end of the black and white opening sequence. Where was Moneypenny? Where was Q? Where was the "Bond, James Bond" moment? Admittedly that came as the very last line in Casino Royale.

Anyway my main point is that CS and QoS went back to the beginning of Bond's story as an MI6 agent. It was kind of like having a story arc in a TV series. The two films were linked. I liked having the gun barrel at the end. For me, it marks the end of the story.

I'm thinking that Q and Moneypenny will be reintroduced complete with opening gun barrel in the next bond flick. I could be wrong but here's hoping.

Btw i'll continue to defend the "invisible" car from Die Another Day. The proper term was adaptive camouflage . Invisibility is a science fiction impossibility. What I can't get my head around is the Q branch "holodeck" simulation idea. Bond hit the nail right on the head with the line "Give me the old firing range any day Quartermaster"

[vespers]

As far as I'm concerned if you don't have any of them you don't have a Bond film. What we have with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is a James Bond Spin off.

I don't expect to have them back in the way that they were before because over the years the characters and the films have always changed but they must return surely.

I for one hope that because we had the gun barrel at the end of Quantum of Solace means we've put an end to the "2 parter" if you like and we can bring more of the traditional elements of the films back in, because for me they've been sorely missed.

[Rebecca A]

Each to their own i guess. Jus ordepenRAB what you want from Bond, gritty and realistic or charming and funny?

[its love]

ive been a 007 fan for many years,Solace was appalling..sweeping shots of the lanRABcape,low key action scenes and the most boring opening scene Ive ever seen.
James Bond in a car chase -hardly exciting stuff -
The story was so sleep inducing and going nowhere.
and what was the point of the villains henchman with the terrible haircut?
Why are the producers trying to imitate the Bourne movies?

Daniel Craig is just too odd looking,Clive Owen should have got the job.

Bring bad a mad genius with the distinctive henchman and the giant laser powered by diamonRAB and a car that has gadgets,and some bloddy humour with some better Bond girls --at least there'd be some fun there..

[dandyl]

can someone explain the plot to me the stunts were great but what is quantum of solace. And I really didnt get it sorry guys:cry::cry::cry:


The theme tune is the worst one ever

[=) Cowgirlbby]

I thought it was excellent, bar a few niggles (I'm sure these have all been mentioned before, just voicing my 2p):

1) The camera-work during the action scenes: I felt sick for the first 15 minutes of the film. What was the point in spending $200m+ on scenes where you can't tell what's going on?

2) Some very obvious green-screening, which really shook you out of the action.

3) It was a bit short. I was expecting at least another half hour.

If only Martin Campbell had directed this, it would've been completely awesome.

Having had my little moan, I thought the plot was fine, DC is a worthy Bond, and the villain was believable. Can't wait for the next one, but for the love of GOD, please no shakycam...