Hmmm....I haven't posted in this thread after ranting at the shitiness of this movie, what's been going on?
Casino Royale was a great Bond movie if anyone was wondering, that was a classic image of what Bond should be.
Quantum was all over the place, all kinds of uncharacteristic things with a plot which is as stupid as hell.
And obviously they don't follow the books, in them Bond smokes like dozens of cigs a day and wouldn't be able to run.
I remember an interview Craig saying that if they followed exactly it would be impossible to have him be so fit as he's ultimately very unhealthy.

As one of the old school Bond movie fan's around here, my mind boggles when I read posts such as the above...

Well no shit Sherlock. The dangers of cigarette smoking didn't start becoming accepted by the public until the 60's and 70's. Hell the surgeon general's warning wasn't on the packets until '65. So no shit they aren't going to use that characteristic from the book. It isn't believable. Let's use some common sense next time. Thanks.

This movie somehow reminded me of why I like movies.

Although that might have to do with not seeing anything enjoyable recently.

I think this movie raises the questions of whether films should deal in shaping ideas of foreign policy, why, and how. Although it's often very easy to equally say the same with the news.

It's interesting the way it tries to inch in on the real contemporary world. Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, 'falling like dominos'. I wonder though whether this would shape people's impressions of environmentalism. I mean the film shows that an 'environmentalist' can be a 'villain' but that doesn't say anything about the cause itself. Anyone from anywhere can become a villain as the film seemed to allude to.

Moral relativism - What do you do when you can't tell your friends from your enemies? Would you value your career and be part of the team? I think that acting just for the sake of unity is a terrible idea. Do that, and you might end up working for anything or anyone without really knowing the cause. It's necessary to work together, but saying you'll do that is the easy part; the difficult part is creating something with a justification big and strong enough to ensure there's no higher purpose for which the organization could be put to better use. Catch people's dreams, and their imagination if you want something great. However that may sound it's as good as fact (or better ) because it's so easy in the world for villains to become heros and heros to villains. I don't think people usually see how easy it would be for the good guys to be made to appear bad, or the other way around. At least it's not talking about. You could take the superhero of one movie and make him the villain in the next. Actions can be made out to be different things. It can be decided by the villain having the face of a frog or having their ideas articulated in a less than ideal way. People might have a problem with moral relativism, but it's as good as actual fact in the real world as it usually works. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to change everything with a switch. Every government or organization bases its legitimacy on some greater cause. But of course they switch sides and support people who can't possibly fit within it because they know the truth behind it. So many changed are made slowly, and systems gradually emerge. Without anybody to ensure that there's a higher reason for it all, it becomes beneficial to make your enemies seem wrong, but how can it ever become more than a matter of convenience? The only way is the best or highest level of evidence. The most reliable and most likely to be true. Ultimately in the surest philosophy, patterns, and with maybe some statistics thrown in. That's something to do anything for. The ultimate truth could be fair and it could allow some way for anything of value to represented. Truth shouldn't contradict itself (it might seem to though because of the limits of knowledge) so it must then allow for anything of value to have some deeper basis or place. That's the only sort of thing to ultimately believe in.

It could be so easy to make Bond out to be a bad guy with Greene back as a good guy fighting for the environment in another movie. There is a tendency for more convincing movies to represent truth, but only a tendency without more. How could you do something about some event you 'know' nothing about? Well obviously if you can view or hear it in any possible way, it's a bit more than nothing.

But anyway: 7.8/10

Well yeah, thanks for the facts. But they are not the point of the movie.

It involves environmentalism, moral relativism, and the nature of foreign policy. Whether it does that well is another matter, but it at least has big ideas. You can't say it's nothing without responding to why or why not.

Jesus Christ, now this was a bad bond film.

The main guy is good however the storyline is way way down from Casino Royale and is way below stuff like like Goldeneye and Goldfinger.

I could say this was like Die Another Day bad...

C+

DAD cracked me up. Unintentionally I think.

I thought that Quantum had its flaws, but I think that it manages to not lose the centrality of its message, which is at least serviceable.

This is a common mistake. The humor in Die Another Day is 100% intentional, and 200% hilarious - - just like Bond movies are born to be. That's right... born to be - - if you want humorlessness, get Bourne!

I'd rank it among the better half of Bond films, mostly thanks to the action-movie capabilities of the 21st century and a few terrific sequences (the opera scene comes to mind), but this has to rank as the most disappointing sequel of the year. It just totally forgets everything fun about the old Bond, as well as failing to continue well upon the new Bond they've set up. It's just like a Bourne film minus the skillful direction and editing.

B-

No it was unintentional shite, and not the enjoyable unintentional humour you get with 80s action movies.

I remember when DAD came out and Brosnan and company were talking about how they'd just made a far more mature Bond picture. Pierce, you see, was interested in exploring Bond's dark side, which is why we had to deal with dumb shit like James being tortured during the opening credits.

If it was, in effect, one of the lesser Roger Moore pictures (which it was), it was entirely by accident.

Quantum of Solace is two things. One, it's as close as you're ever going to get to an art house version of a James Bond film. Second, it's the second half of a movie. As a standalone Bond I don't think it works. If you haven't seen Casino Royale then you just can't turn this on at any point of the movie and go with it like you could with all the other Bond movies. You'd be absolutely lost. Then again, who the hell would watch this without having seen Casino Royale.

The basic problem that plagues the movie is that it feels like it's in a desperate rush to get to the conclusion. But since this is a separate Bond film and not the last half of a four movie, there was absolutely no need for Marc Forster to rush through this thing. And the action scenes suffer too often from Michael Bay-itis style editing. It also feels like whole chunks were edited out of the film. At the end of the film, Dominic Greene tells Bond everything that he needs to know about Quantum and then Bond lets him go in the desert with the motor oil. That's a great Bond moment. But why couldn't we have seen the scene of the two of them in the car? Why couldn't we learn what Bond now knows? The movie keeps us at a distance for no particular reason except that it seems to want the distinction of being the shortest James Bond movie. Congrats, you did it, but you undermined the movie in several key places.

That saying, it does work as a straight up sequel to Casino Royale. It feels like it could've been right at home in the Dalton series, mostly because Bond is pissed off in this and Dalton seemed to play Bond as being pissed off most of the time. We do get closure to the end of the Vesper storyline and were finally ready to move on. The action sequences are quite a bit of fun and the opera scene is a knockout. Stylistically alone it's both striking and memorable. It's the one scene in the film I can say Forster got perfect and the nod to The Spy Who Loved Me was a nice touch. The film could've used a few more nice touches though.

Now bring on Skyfall.

**½ (B-)

1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) - ***** (A+)
2. Goldfinger (1964) - ***** (A+)
3. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - ***** (A+)
4. Casino Royale (2006) - ***** (A+)
5. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - ***** (A+)
6. From Russia with Love (1963) - ****½ (A)
7. Licence to Kill (1989) - ****½ (A)
8. Goldeneye (1995) - **** (A-)
9. The Living Daylights (1987) - **** (A-)
10. Live and Let Die (1973) - ***½ (B+)
11. You Only Live Twice (1967) - *** (B)
12. For Your Eyes Only (1981) - *** (B)
13. The World is Not Enough (1999) - *** (B)
14. Thunderball (1965) - *** (B)
15. Dr. No (1962) - *** (B)
16. Quantum of Solace (2008) - **½ (B-)
17. A View to a Kill (1985) - **½ (B-)
18. The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) - **½ (C+)
19. Diamonds are Forever (1971) - **½ (C+)
20. Octopussy (1983) - ** (C)
21. Moonraker (1979) - ** (C)
22. Die Another Day (2002) - *½ (C-)

Just finished watching this, forgot how bad this was. The best parts were the ones specifically dealing with Casino Royale stuff. The rest, blech, especially the main chick.

This one was BORING. Felt like a Mission Impossible movie. No fun at all and the plot is uninspired. And Kurylenko is no Eva Green. And the villain is boring too.

I decided to give this another chance now the Craig era has been concluded, didn't remember it fondly, in large part because Casino Royale is such an excellent Bond entry this felt like a big let down. And it's deserved, the film is messy, the stakes aren't high and there's simply lapses in editing and narrative that are a detriment to the film. But the action is actually still pretty good and Craig feels very comfortable and is very good in this too. Kurylenko is also nice, but the villain is definitely one of the worst. So basically putting everything together it's hard not to see this as a failed film actually. It feels more like an tv-episode of Bond, and when looking at it in that context and with lowered expectations I was actually still fairly entertained, there's still enough quality in it to make it fun and action packed and ultimately I don't mind this exists in the Craig universe.

B-